Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Rural Employment

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps she proposes to promote more employment opportunities in rural areas; and if she will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The Government work with a number of agencies such as the Rural Development Commission and Scottish Enterprise to promote enterprise, economic diversity and employment in rural areas. Using the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils, we have a range of facilities and programmes for people in rural areas.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware of the locally derived initiative that Scottish Borders Enterprise has put together, called "Packaged Training", which is particularly appropriate for rural areas given the distances involved in getting people to training opportunities? Is he also aware that, this year, the budget of Scottish Borders Enterprise for that purpose has been cut from £530,000 to £380,000? Last year, 180 people were given an opportunity to retrain, but, sadly, that number will be cut because the budget for this year has already been used. Will the Minister attempt to find ways of providing extra funds so that such employment opportunities can continue to be provided in the future?

Mr. McLoughlin: As I said, we provide a range of facilities to help in rural areas. The points that the hon. Gentleman raised are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I shall ensure that they are brought to his attention.

Mr. Moss: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the work of enterprise agencies, particularly those in rural areas such as the Fens Business Enterprise Trust in my constituency? Is he aware that in the current economic climate, funding for such enterprise agencies has become increasingly difficult to obtain? Will he give some consideration to providing more centralised funding to allow that good work to continue?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure that more centralised funding is the way to go about the problem. Perhaps a better way to proceed is to provide money to the TECs, as we have done in the past two years, so that they can make

their own decisions. That is probably preferable to the Government's making more centralised decisions. I shall. however, consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Youth Training

2. Mr. Bryan Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment she has made of the quality and quantity of training places available to young people.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I am satisfied that, across the country as a whole, the quality and quantity of youth training places are meeting the needs of young people and those of the economy.

Mr. Davies: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment, but is she aware that when the chairmen of the north-west regional TECs sought a new Secretary of State, they did so because they wanted increased funds for training? What is her justification for the cuts in financial provision for each youth training place in Oldham and for the cuts in unit costs for training places throughout the north-west?

Mrs. Shephard: I met the chairmen of the north-west TECs recently, and we discussed a number of matters, including funding and flexibility. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there has been an unjustifiable variation in the unit costs for youth training places—a variation of £30 per place—and I think that it was right to bring those costs closer together.

Sir Anthony Durant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. What representations has she received from Labour Members about the youth training scheme?

Mrs. Shephard: Very few, because my hon. Friend will know that Labour Members have consistently set their face against youth training; and I believe that the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors many Labour Members, voted to boycott youth training. That scandalous state of affairs has not been criticised by Opposition Members.

Mr. Leighton: In welcoming the Secretary of State to her new duties, may I inquire whether she has read the excellent pamphlet published by Youth Aid, the Children's Society and 30 other organisations, entitled "A Broken Promise: A Failure of Youth Training Policy"? It makes it clear that the youth training guarantee is not being delivered and that right across the country, including my constituency, thousands of young people are leaving school with no jobs, no training places and no benefits? What will she do to improve youth training?

Mrs. Shephard: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have read that important report, and that of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I must set the concerns expressed in those reports in context; 300,000 young people are successfully engaged in youth training. The Government will ensure a guaranteed place for every young person and no TEC has been or will be prevented from meeting that guarantee by a lack of resources. However, if there is a problem in the machinery, we shall look into it.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: May I, as a Norfolk Member, also congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new appointment? Can she confirm that it is the Government's intention to ensure that every young person not in full-time education from the age of 16 has a training place? Will she visit Norwich at the earliest opportunity to check whether that policy is being carried out to the full?

Mrs. Shephard: I confirm that there is a guaranteed place for every young person who needs one. I intend to visit Norwich shortly.

Mr. Fatchett: I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on her appointment. Does she recognise that an equally important statistic is not the 300,000 young people on youth training places but the 100,000 who are struggling to find places? Is she also aware that the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the former Chairman of the Select Committee, showed that half the TECs were having difficulty meeting the youth guarantee? Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State has been misled by her civil servants, or that she is ignorant about what is happening to youth training—the simple fact being that the guarantee is not being delivered by the Government?

Mrs. Shephard: I repeat that the Government do and will ensure that there is a guaranteed place for every young person. I accept that there is some waiting for places, but that is to be expected, given the importance of placing young people in training that suits their needs. As I said, if there is a problem with machinery, I shall certainly look into it. The machinery should not fail young people.

Disabled Employees

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations she has received about the employment of people with disabilities; and if she will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): We have received a number of representations about the help that we provide for people with disabilities, including the sheltered placement scheme, the new placing assessment and counselling teams and the training provision available through TECs.

Mr. Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he make it one of his first priorities to examine closely why the public sector falls below the private sector in giving jobs to the disabled? Why does the BBC have one of the worst records of any public organisation, employing only 71 registered disabled among its 25,000 employees? Will he ask the BBC to give free television licences to the disabled until it starts to co-operate with his Department?

Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the BBC will have broadcast my hon. Friend's message, which I hope will be received. As for the differences in employment practice between the public and private sectors, it is true that, in general, the quotas are least well met by the public sector. But I should say, in defence of both sectors, that the number of people registered as disabled is about 1 per cent. of the work force and the quota is 3 per cent., making it a mathematical impossibility for employers to achieve their legal obligation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does it not concern the Minister that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) last week, the Prime Minister confirmed that there was not one disabled person working at No. 10 Downing street? Before the Government lecture the BBC or anybody else, will they put their own house in order?

Mr. Forsyth: I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's comments are drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister.

EC Employment

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what policies she has to promote employment for British people within the EC.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We are working to give our people better access to jobs in other EC countries by improving the system for exchanging job vacancies between member states, securing mutual recognition of qualifications and providing information about living and working elsewhere in the EC.

Sir Michael Neubert: With British people keeping fitter and living longer, is it not against both the spirit of the times and natural justice that the European Commission should limit applicants to its posts to people aged 35 or under? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to root out that blatant example of Brussels ageism?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree. Indeed, the first speech that I made in my new post was on the subject of ageism. It is astonishing that the European Commission should be one of the worst practitioners of ageism. If one wants to apply for a job as a dishwasher or an administrator with the European Commission, one must be under the age of 35. On that basis, I hope that the House will forgive me for pointing out that most of us in this Chamber would be considered too old for the job.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the policy of ageism is not only undesirable but stupid. It diminishes the supply of talent to the economy throughout the Community, and I hope that efforts made to combat ageism will be taken on board by employers throughout the United Kingdom and by the European Commission.

Mr. McLeish: I also welcome the Minister to his new position in the employment team. The whole of Scotland rejoices in the fact that he has now been moved from the Scottish Office. Unfortunately, however, he will now visit upon the unemployed and those who need training the right-wing policies that have done so much damage in Scotland.
Is the Minister aware that, between September 1979 and September 1991, the number of people employed in Britain fell by 13,000? Why do the Government have the most appalling employment record in post-war Britain? Does he accept that, with fewer people working in this country, his policies have failed? We now need urgent action to tackle not only the growing problem of training but the scandal of rising unemployment and the reduction in employment.

Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the reasons for my moving from the Scottish Office, where I was responsible for education, to Employment were the same as the reasons


for the hon. Gentleman's move from Scottish spokesman on education to employment. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that both of us now enjoy a wider brief.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about unemployment in the European Community, surely he would agree with those of us who argue that as there are 15.5 million people unemployed in the Community, our first priority must be to ensure that there are measures to create jobs and get people back to work. What a pity that Opposition Members support so many of the highly damaging proposals coming out of Europe which would destroy jobs in Britain and throughout the Community.

Mr. Rowe: I welcome my hon. Friend's earlier comments about ageism. Does he agree that one of the great difficulties for many people trying to keep employment is the working of the pensions system., which makes it profitable for employers to get rid of people aged 50 and above, and makes it difficult for such people to find employment elsewhere?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to such difficulties. There are ways round those problems and we have asked managers and jobcentres, in discussion with employers, to draw to employers' attention the benefits of employing older workers and some of the ways round the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Sheffield TEC

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those participating in the Sheffield TEC programmes successfully find full-time employment.

Mr. McLoughlin: In the Sheffield TEC area in the year to July 1991, some 65 per cent. of youth training leavers and 38 per cent. of employment training leavers who completed their training were in full-time employment.

Mr. Michie: The Government have been claiming to have met the guarantee month after month. Will they wake up to the fact that those courses are inadequate and not available to most people, and that there is not enough fund money and grants for people to afford to take the training courses—let alone get a job at the end of them?

Mr. McLoughlin: No. The Government will take no lectures from the Labour party on the provision of training, about which it did absolutely nothing when in government. This Government are committed to providing training a concept totally alien to the action taken by the Labour party when it was last in office.

Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that employment opportunities for people participating in the Sheffield training and enterprise council courses will be severely reduced if the 48-hour working week is imposed on British industry by the European Commission? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will fight those proposals and that there will be no compromise?

Mr. McLoughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue he has raised is in the forefront of our minds. Obviously, the proposals will be negotiated and discussions will take place at Community level. We hope to obtain satisfactory arrangements for the United Kingdom.

Unemployment

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Government have to reduce the level of unemployment; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government's role is to ensure a sound and stable economic framework within which enterprise can flourish and the battle against inflation can be won. We also wish to ensure that the Department's programmes give the highest priority to getting unemployed people back to work as quickly as possible.

Mr. Worthington: Is the Secretary of State aware that today the voluntary organisation, the Strathclyde poverty alliance, has found that one in 10 of 16 and 17-year-olds in Strathclyde—5,500 young people—are not receiving the Government's youth guarantee? When will the Secretary of State open the books and let us have a full investigation of what is going on in the training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies throughout the country? Does she agree that the Government have broken their promise?

Mrs. Shephard: As I have already said, there is a guarantee of a place for young people. If machinery is failing young people, we need to know about it. I shall certainly look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important contribution to the British economy made by part-time workers, particularly in the leisure and tourism industries in constituencies such as mine? Does she accept that it would be uniquely damaging to that industry were we to accept the part-time working directive supported by the Labour party, as it would cause untold damage to industries such as leisure and tourism?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes, I agree. A number of the policies supported by the Labour party would increase unemployment. In this country we need a flexible labour market, and opportunities for part-time work and women returners. We shall continue to fight for a flexible labour market.

Ms. Estelle Morris: Is the Minister aware that my constituency of Birmingham, Yardley recently suffered the highest increase in unemployment of any of the 12 Birmingham constituencies—a most unfortunate first for my constituency, which is not a region of traditionally high unemployment? Does she agree that that statistic shows the depth of the Tory recession and the extent of the Government's attack on manufacturing jobs in the west midlands and Birmingham?

Mrs. Shephard: Unemployment is certainly difficult for the individuals and families involved. Tackling unemployment and improving the skills and confidence of the work force are major elements in the Government's inner-city policy. I feel certain that the programmes provided by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment will help the hon. Lady's constituents to return to work as quickly as possible.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great enemies of employment is over-regulation of the labour market? Will she therefore


not only reiterate her opposition to the idea of a 48-hour maximum week and all the other rubbish from Brussels, but recommit herself to deregulation here in the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend well knows that the Government are committed to a deregulated labour market. We have made it clear from the outset that the damaging working time directive is unnecessary and has been produced on totally unjustifiable grounds as a health and safety measure.

Mr. Blair: I wish the right hon. Lady every strength in her new position, especially in her relations with the Treasury, where I suspect she will need it most. Does she agree that the most pressing problem that she faces is rising unemployment? If urgent action is not taken, hundreds of thousands more people will face the dole this summer. I urge her to show that the change in her Department is one of substance as well of image. She should abandon the dismal failure of employment action, reverse the policy of running down training for the unemployed, and provide the job and training opportunities that the country would support and that the unemployed desperately need.

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I wonder whether this is his last but one Question Time in his present position and whether before long he, too, will take advantage of retraining opportunities. I remind him that the Department offers almost 1 million places on employment and training programmes this year, an increase of 100,000 on last year. We are increasing spending on youth training; but, above all, it is the economic framework, to which we are committed and the hon. Gentleman's party is not, which will increase employment opportunities fast.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment. I am sure that she will agree that women Members are doing pretty well. Will she bear it in mind that women and men with disabilities are more punctual and have fewer days off than men? Could that fact be drawn to the attention of those who seek to engage personnel?

Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for her good wishes. She is right to draw the attention of employers and others to people with disabilities. That is a particular responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who will be taking forward policies in that area.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of male unemployment in Grimsby (a) in 1982 and (b) at the latest available date.

Mr. McLoughlin: In June 1983, the earliest date for which figures are available, on the unadjusted basis there were 8,380 men claiming unemployment-related benefits in the Grimsby travel-to-work area. There has been a reduction of 10.4 per cent., leaving a total of 7,507 in April 1992.

Mr. Mitchell: Is it not disgraceful that in the second Government-induced recession unemployment is almost up to the level that it attained in the first Government-induced recession, at about one man in six in Grimsby? Is

it not also disgraceful that at such a time the Government are cutting spending on training? Instead of praying for a recovery, which cannot come at present interest rates, the Government should expand the economy and improve spending on training and the quality of its provision.

Mr. McLoughlin: That is an obvious example of a hon. Member who prepared his supplementary before he heard the answer to his main question and stuck to it irrespective of the main answer. As I have said, there was a reduction of 10.4 per cent. in the year to April 1992, the year about which the hon. Gentleman asked. We really expect better of him.

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the level of unemployment since 1979; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom rose by 1.607 million between April 1979 and April 1992. It is still about 430,000 less than at its peak in July 1986.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I remind the Secretary of State that, as a direct result of Government policy, about 20,000 mining-related jobs have been lost in the Wakefield district during that period. When will the RECHAR and European social fund programmes commence in mid-Yorkshire, and when will local authorities be advised of the details of the schemes that are to be included? What assessment has been made of the implications of Government proposals for the privatisation of coal in areas such as the Wakefield district, not just in terms of miners' jobs but for industries such as mining engineering?

Mrs. Shephard: Jobs in manufacturing, as in all other sectors, have obviously been affected by the downturn in the economy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, manufacturing's share of GDP has declined under all Governments. The programmes that he mentions are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I shall draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mrs. Peacock: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the United Kingdom population is in work and how that compares with our EC neighbours?

Mrs. Shephard: The interesting thing is that 70 per cent. of people of working age in our population are in employment, which is higher than the EC average of 58 per cent.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State accept that that is unhealthily complacent of the Government? Will she accept that it is not just a waste for individuals but a waste of resources to keep people unemployed, as it costs £8,600 for each person in loss of benefit and taxation? Will the Government introduce schemes that will put people back to work, build up our manufacturing base and help to achieve the Government's own programme of maintaining services and cutting taxes?

Mrs. Shephard: There is no complacency in the Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the best way to put people out of work is to pursue the sort of policies that he and his hon. Friends supported up to the election. The programmes in place and mounted by my Department, the Employment Service and employment


training, are the best possible ways of getting people back to work as quickly as possible. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that two thirds of all the newly unemployed leave unemployment within six months. It is down to the Employment Service to help them to achieve that.

Mr. Jenkin: In seeking to create employment opportunities in the United Kingdom and in resisting, rightly, the European "shirking" hours directive, will my right hon. Friend consider using all means at her disposal and will she help the House to defy the European Court if necessary?

Mrs. Shephard: As I have already said, the United Kingdom has made it clear from the outset that we resist the directive and consider it to be unjustified. We believe that it will impose liabilities on our labour market that we do not need and do not want. I remind my hon. Friend that it is being brought forward, unjustifiably, under the qualified majority voting procedure. On legal challenge, I rule nothing in and nothing out at this stage.

Employment Appeal Tribunals

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average time taken for employment appeal tribunals to deal with cases.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The average length of time taken for a case to reach a hearing by the employment appeal tribunals is four months in Scotland and two years in England and Wales—(Interruption.] Like hon. Members, I am very concerned about the delays in England and Wales and we are taking action to help reduce them.

Mr. Eastham: I thank the Minister for that reply. The Equal Opportunities Commission considered a case against Lloyds Bank. The case was heard in September 1989 and succeeded. Lloyds appealed and there was a hearing in February 1992. The parties are still awaiting the judgment. If, at the end of the day, the Equal Opportunities Commission succeeds, it will not even receive interest on the money to which it is entitled.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on specific cases. However, I agree that such delays and other current delays are unacceptable. We have made arrangements for additional judge time to be made available through my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. We will also be introducing legislative proposals to allow the employment appeal tribunals president to sit alone in certain cases. Also, additional court and administrative staff have been appointed.

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my hon. Friend remind those who bring cases of their responsibilities? Is he aware that a firm in my constituency has twice within recent years been taken before a tribunal only to find that the appellant did not turn up? Considerable legal costs were incurred by the firm concerned.

Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on a specific case. It must be in the interests of good industrial relations and good practice if the EAT procedure operates smoothly and effectively. I am sure that there may be something to be learnt from experience north of the border.

Mr. Skinner: If the Minister is going to review the scandalous waiting time of more than two years for appeals, will he consider reverting to what used to happen when people who had been in work for six months were allowed to appeal to an industrial tribunal instead of having to wait until they had been in work for two years? Do that as well.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, seems to be confusing two things. The question is on employment appeal tribunals, and I have given an assurance in that respect. He is tempting me to go into a wholly different area—a temptation which I shall resist.

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what her policy is towards training and enterprise councils which build up reserves from their block grant.

Mr. McLoughlin: TECs are able to earn surpluses from increased efficiency. They are required by their contract with us to use such surpluses to further the objectives set out in their corporate and business plans.

Mr. Paice: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure that he will agree that, in some parts of the country, training providers experience difficulty in finding the workplace element of YT. They therefore keep trainees in workshops for longer, which costs more. Will he undertake to encourage TECs to recognise the extra costs on training providers, rather than using the money to build up sometimes unnecessarily large reserves?

Mr. McLoughlin: I have received representations on this matter. The TECs' contracts make clear the priority that is attached to their training objectives. A significant part of their funding relates to trainees' achievements, which is an incentive to invest in improving the quality of their training provision. However, I shall seriously consider my hon. Friend's point.

Ms. Coffey: Is the Minister aware that engineering training places for young people in Stockport are vacant because High Peak TEC cannot afford to fund them? Does he think that that reflects the Government's failure to provide proper training opportunities for young people and to provide them with the skills that they can invest in industry for the future?

Mr. McLoughlin: A TEC must consider what is required in its area. I am not aware of the specific problem to which the hon. Lady refers, but I shall consider it. However, TECs are best suited to decide what is required in their area. No one would say that they should provide training places if people do not want to attend such courses.

Employment Law

Mr. Duncan-Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how she will strengthen the rights of individuals, in the field of employment law, in accordance with citizens charter proposals.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We intend to introduce legislation to give individuals new rights to restrain unlawfully organised industrial action in the public and


private sectors. In addition, the legislation will ensure that individuals' consent is required before deductions for trades union subscriptions are made from their pay and will give individuals greater freedom to belong to the union of their choice.

Mr. Duncan-Smith: May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent appointment? In the light of the recent report in the Sunday Mirror, in which the deputy general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees made a statement to the Labour party —"No say, no pay"—does not he think it disgraceful that he should be able to threaten the future employment—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is not relevant to the question on the Order Paper. We shall move on to the next question.

Community Work

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has for introducing a community work requirement for the payment of unemployment benefit.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We have no such plans.

Mr. Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Is she aware that many of the long-term unemployed are layabouts? They should have to do community work before receiving benefit. The taxpayers are sick and tired of financing these layabouts. Will she introduce new legislation so that for every year that these layabouts are on the dole one week's employment benefit is stopped? Will she introduce that legislation, because after the next election the lot opposite are going to be the new long-term unemployed?

Mrs. Shephard: The taxpayers have every right to expect good value for money from programmes designed for unemployed people. I should like to reasssure my hon. Friend that we are already providing a wider variety of help than ever before through employment and training programmes to get long-term unemployed people back to work. That includes, of course, help for unemployed people to improve their skills on employment action, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

Mr. Battle: Given that the Treasury today announced that it has revised the estimate of economic growth down to 0.5 per cent., is not the implication that at least 3.5 million real people will be unemployed by Christmas? Will not that be a drain on the nation's resources that none of her schemes will tackle?

Mrs. Shephard: What is certain is that if the Labour party had been elected, with its wholly unrealistic economic policies, that total would have been reached and passed.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend consider the particular difficulty of people who left school at 16, went through training and into a job but who, through no fault of their own, now find themselves unemployed? There seems to be a gap in benefits for them.

Mrs. Shephard: Entitlement to benefit, as my hon. Friend will know, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State for Social Security, but there are special arrangements for young people who find themselves in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes.

Industrial Hazards

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many establishments are required to register under the Control of Industrial Major Hazards Regulations 1989.

Mr. McLoughlin: As at 31 December 1991, a total of 289 establishments had been notified to the Health and Safety Executive as "top-tier" sites under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984.

Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that such sites could represent the highest potential risk to public safety? Will he also confirm that the Health and Safety Executive has been incredibly dilatory in assessing the real level of risk in those places? Does he intend to communicate directly with the HSE to ensure that a proper assessment is made and that public safety is assured?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is correct to mention the HSE's diligence in carrying out its duties under the regulations. I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments, and he can be sure that the Government will ensure that the HSE carries out its obligations.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate HSE inspectors around the country on their work with hazardous substances in very hazardous circumstances? Are they not worthy of the highest praise, rather than the criticism that we hear too often from the Opposition?

Mr. McLoughlin: Indeed they are. Most people who come into contact with the HSE and its inspectors are very impressed by the professional way in which they carry out their work.

Mr. Cryer: Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient health and safety inspectors in post to ensure that all the major hazard sites—and, indeed, all the minor hazard sites—are inspected and properly assessed because, as he knows, many small factories are not inspected for many years at a time due to the grave shortage of qualified inspectors? Are the Government going to do something about that?

Mr. McLoughlin: I go part of the way with the hon. Gentleman. It is right that some of the bigger sites have safety in mind in relation to their responsibilities to the community and to their employees and that care must be taken at some smaller sites. However, I am confident that there are enough inspectors to carry out the work.

Women Workers

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she has any plans to accommodate the special needs of women at work.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I will look at a range of issues relating to the needs of women at work with the help of the new working group which I announced on 20 May.

Mrs. Gorman: Can my hon. Friend confirm that almost half the work force in Britain now comprises women and that in many areas of the country the new industries which are replacing the old industries are especially suitable for women? Does she agree with a publication out this week on equal opportunities, which states that women's criteria in working are often quite different from those of men? Women value part-time work and flexibility more than high wages and security of employment. It is, therefore, extremely important that we resist pressure from the European Community to make the conditions of work for men apply to women.

Mrs. Shephard: I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the report published yesterday by the Institute of Economic Affairs. I have not yet had time to consider that report. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the authors are mostly American and that their experiences and views may well be coloured by the American experience of positive discrimination legislation, which is unlawful in this country. However, I agree that women and men benefit from a flexible labour market and especially from the opportunity of job sharing, and part-time work in the way that my hon. Friend describes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting Colombia to have discussions with President Gaviria on a wide range of issues. He will carry out other official duties including an inspection of an anti-narcotics police training school.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware of the major argument that broke out in Rio de Janeiro last night at the Earth summit between my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), Labour's spokeswoman for overseas development, and Baroness Chalker, the Minister, on the £10 billion decline in the Government's aid programme over the past 13 years? Will he confirm that when the Prime Minister told the House last week that over the past 13 years since the fall of the Labour Government, there has been a real increase in overseas aid as a proportion of gross domestic product, he was wrong, he was in error, and had not clone his homework?

Mr. Newton: I cannot say that I have had a detailed blow-by-blow account of the conversation in Rio last night. What I do know is that underlying my right hon. Friend's statement last week is the fact that we spent more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year—an increase of 4.7 per cent. in real terms over the previous year. Our aid is planned to continue to grow in real terms to almost £2 billion in 1994–95. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will point out to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who claimed that we had cut by half our aid

to third-world countries, that our aid has gone up from £727 million to more than £1.8 billion in the past financial year.

Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new common agricultural policy agreement led by the British Government is advantageous to the British consumer, fair to the British farmer and is likely to break the deadlock at the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks?

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the agreement is not only very advantageous to this country and to the sensible development of agricultural policies in Europe, since it reduces the burden of the CAP on consumers by £8 billion for the Community as a whole, but it will help to restore the credibility of the Community in the GATT negotiations and will make a settlement of those negotiations, devoutly desired by hon. Members of all parties, more likely.

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hanson: Is the Leader of the House aware that since privatisation the number of water cut-offs has trebled, and that in Wales it has increased even further? Is he further aware that since privatisation the salaries and bonuses of water company chairmen have risen by 290 per cent., and that in Wales they have risen by 211 per cent? Is that not a case of Tory policy making the rich richer and the poor poorer? Will the right hon. Gentleman today take the opportunity to condemn the water companies for their actions, and will he put pressure on the authorities to take steps in this regard?

Mr. Newton: What I am aware of is that, largely as a result of the inaction of the previous Labour Government—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a waste of precious time.

Mr. Newton: And—(Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear what the Leader of the House has to say.

Mr. Newton: And the—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. It is now my turn. Will the House please come to order, so that at least I can hear what the Leader of the House has to say?

Mr. Newton: What I am aware of is that, as a result of long neglect of water investment under the previous Administration, there has been a considerable need to improve investment in supply and water quality. Since privatisation, the level of water investment has doubled, and it has more than doubled since five years before privatisation.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 June.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first-ever visit by a serving Prime Minister of this country to any country in South America? Does not our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's choice of Colombia for his first port of call give us an opportunity to endorse our historical, if somewhat neglected, links with that country; to thank it for its support during the Falklands war; and to promote further co-operation in our joint efforts to fight the menace of drug trafficking?

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. This first-ever visit by a serving British Prime Minister to a South American country is indeed very welcome: it reflects the factors mentioned by my hon. Friend, and provides a further opportunity to enhance the already close co-operation that exists between this country and Colombia in combating the drugs menace.

Mr. Hattersley: Can the Leader of the House confirm that information given to newspapers yesterday by the Foreign Office that Britain is attempting to negotiate a protocol to the Maastricht treaty, to prepare the House for a resubmission of the Maastricht Bill?

Mr. Newton: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that the possibility to which he has referred is clearly one among a range of others that can sensibly be considered in the uncertain circumstances that have followed the Danish referendum. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Newton: I was giving the right hon. Gentleman, I hope, a straightforward and clear-cut answer—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement yesterday, it is obviously necessary, following the Danish referendum last week—this is acknowledged on all sides—to look at all possible ways of moving forward in the wake of the Danish decision. What I indicated in the early part of my remarks does no more than confirm that one of the possibilities which can clearly be considered, but without commitment at this stage, is that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Hattersley: It is indeed a strange Government who are categorical to newspapers on one day and evasive to the House of Commons on the next. Does the Leader of the House understand that the time has gone when progress can be made on the Maastricht Bill by contrivance and manipulation? There are many of us on both sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hattersley: There are many of us on both sides of sides of the House, long-standing enthusiasts for European unity, who will support progress only of a Bill that is clear, honest and comprehensive and which includes those parts of the treaty most of benefit to the British people, and that specifically includes the social chapter.

Mr. Newton: There is a slight contrast, I think, between what the right hon. Gentleman is telling us this afternoon and what his right hon. Friend the Member for

Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) appeared to tell us yesterday afternoon, which was that he was both for and against the treaty, depending upon what happened in other quarters. The British Government's position is absolutely clear and entirely in line with what I said a few moments ago; that is, that it is necessary, not simply for one country—this one—but for 12, including not least the Danes, to consider the position created by the events of last week and to look at various ways forward from there. That is a sensible policy and it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that there is a simple, neat and immediate answer.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are few less agreeable sights than that of a pack of greedy voyeurs on the make? Will he please convey the good wishes of the House to the Prince and Princess of Wales, our thanks for their past services and hopes for their future happiness?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that I would not wish to be drawn into comment on the stories that have been appearing in the press, but there will be very widespread support in all parts of the House for the comments made by the Press Complaints Commission yesterday. As my hon. Friend knows, our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will take into account the views of the Press Complaints Commission in his forthcoming review of press self-regulation, which is due to start in July. He will have the support of the whole House in doing precisely that.

North Atlantic Treaty

Dr. Godman: To ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to initiate discussions at the forthcoming NATO ministerial meeting in Oslo on matters relating to article 4 and article 12 of the North Atlantic treaty; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
Articles 4 and 12 of the North Atlantic treaty were not discussed. But the North Atlantic Council communiqué, copies of which have been placed in the Library, made it clear that NATO was prepared to support peacekeeping activities on a case-by-case basis under the auspices of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

Dr. Godman: With reference to article 4 of the treaty, and more specifically paragraph 17 of United Nations resolution 757, will the Leader of the House confirm that NATO forces will not be employed in a peacekeeping role in the former republic of Yugoslavia except with the unanimous agreement of the 16 nations which comprise NATO and under the specific command of the United Nations? If such a role is even to be considered, will Her Majesty's Government press the case for the command structure to be European, rather than American-led?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that work is in progress within the alliance to establish precisely how and under what conditions NATO might undertake peacekeeping activity on behalf of or under CSCE auspices. Clearly, the expectation is that such activity would be conducted in consultation with our European partners in that organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Points of Order

Madam Speaker: Before we move on to public business, I must hear a point of order from Mrs. Jackson.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be grateful if you would advise the House whether it is in order for the Member of Parliament of a neighbouring constituency—Sheffield, Hallam in this case—to, in the words of my constituents,
be very involved and helpful
in advising them how to go about presenting a petition to the Prime Minister on Thursday without any reference to me as constituency Member of Parliament. He has done so to the extent that my constituents now understand that the only way to obtain a favourable decision from the Secretary of State for Education on an application for grant-maintained status or against the closure of a school is to have the petition presented by a Conservative Member.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady— [Interruption.] J Order. I have a point of order to answer, and that I am going to do. The hon. Lady knows that that it is not a question of order, but she also knows that it is a matter of the convention of the House. I say clearly that if, for any reason, a Member has cause to take up a matter that affects another Member's constituency, it is the established practice in the House to inform that Member.
While I am on my feet, may I say this in general for the benefit of Members of long-standing and, in particular, for the benefit of new Members? In the heated atmosphere of this place, the common courtesies are far too often neglected. [Interruption.] Order; I am speaking. It is essential that the established courtesies be maintained for the sake of good working relationships in this Chamber and in the House in general. I hope that that is taken to heart by every Member, whether new or of long-standing. I shall now move on to public business.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is an entirely different and uncontentious point of order. Today and yesterday prayers began at 2.29 pm. This may seem a small point. but sometimes those of us who are regular attenders at prayers time it to the last minute and we would have been excluded today and yesterday, and several times last week. Could the matter be looked into?

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Lady is saying that occasionally I stride out too rapidly in the Speaker's procession, I will take it into consideration.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In Question Time you will have heard the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) refer to unemployed people as "layabouts". You know that many millions of people in this country are unemployed and have no alternative but to watch television in the afternoon. They will have seen him make that statement and will be deeply distressed. Will you from the Chair refute that suggestion and make it clear that that is not the view of the majority of Members?

Madam Speaker: That sounds like an extension of Question Time, and I shall certainly not allow the Chair to get involved in that. All Members are responsible for the

statements that they make, and I hope that in making them they will be guarded and courteous to each other and to people outside the House.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order—

Mr. Paul Flynn: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Two hon. Members are on their feet at the same time. I call Mr. Winnick.

Mr. Winnick: You spoke about common courtesy, Madam Speaker. The House has a responsibility for all citizens. People who find themselves unemployed and who are victims of Government policy—

Madam Speaker: Order. Please come to the point for me.

Mr. Winnick: If a section of the community has been attacked, and if a slur has been cast because an hon. Member has described them as "layabouts", can you, Madam Speaker, advise me on how we can defend people who are not in a position to defend themselves?

Madam Speaker: I have already attempted to deal with that. By no means is the Chair getting involved.

Mr. Barry Field: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I thank you for being clear about the common courtesies of the House and may I draw to your attention the fact that, during the previous Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) was mentioned twice by Opposition Members who did not acknowledge the normal courtesies of the House by notifying him that his name was to be mentioned in the Chamber? Could you reiterate that the normal courtesy is for hon. Members to notify one another when they intend to visit and to speak in their constituencies?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If a Member or his constituency is named in the House, he should he notified in advance. Of course it is also courteous to tell other Members when an official visit is to be made to their constituency.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it an extension of the last point of order?

Mr. Banks: No.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.

Mr. Banks: Would you confirm that, under the Mental Health Acts, you have the power to section? Perhaps you would contemplate using that power.

Madam Speaker: On that note, it is time for us to proceed with the business of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the 15 motions on statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Gas plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Telecommunications plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.
That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Housing (Percentage of Approved Expense for Repairs Grants) (Lead Plumbing and Radon Gas Works) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1992 he referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

VETERINARY SURGEONS

That the Veterinary Surgery (Epidural Anaesthesia) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 696) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Opposition Day

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

Ethnic Minorities

Madam Speaker: Before I call the first speaker, I should say that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising that the ethnic minorities within British society receive less than their fair share of national resources and remain victims of discrimination and prejudice, calls upon the Government to introduce and implement policies which initially reduce and eventually eliminate the disadvantages which are suffered by these British citizens.
The motion was intended to be uncontroversial between the parties. It contains no criticism of the Government's record or policy. It was drafted in the hope —a vain hope, as it turned out—that the House could unite in unanimous agreement about the need to take immediate, decisive action to reduce discrimination against ethnic minorities. The Government have chosen to table an amendment which manages to be simultaneously pious and partisan. It includes sentiments which sit uncomfortably alongside the statements and speeches made by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) during the general election. We shall vote against the amendment because, in our view, the time for platitudes has passed and the time for action has come.
In part, we chose this subject for debate because there is a new Home Secretary. We did so not simply to celebrate his appointment but to express the hope that, at least in this particular, he will do better than his immediate predecessors. It is even possible that we at last have a Conservative Home Secretary—I think, the first for 30 years—who represents a constituency which contains members of the ethnic minority community. If that is the case, he must know the extent of the disadvantage from which these British citizens suffer. It was our hope—it remains our hope, despite the amendment—that he will wish to take action that has previously been neglected but is urgently in the interests of this section of the British public.
I emphasise that the motion, and the debate, concern British citizens who are denied the full rights of British citizenship. The facts are indisputable. We know, at one extreme of the social spectrum, that black defendants are denied bail in circumstances in which it would be granted to white suspects. At the other extreme, we know that highly qualified black and Asian job applicants are rejected for no other reason than their racial origins. These are facts which it is painful to repeat because of what they demonstrate about our society, but, unless we acknowledge the existence of the canker, we will not cut it out, and there is no doubt how great the infection is today.
Parliamentary answers given on 22 May this year demonstrate the extent of one form of discrimination. From 1989 to 1991, the average rate of male unemployment was 8 per cent. For white males, it was 7 per cent. For ethnic minorities, it was almost twice that

figure, at 13 per cent. For men of Indian origin, it was 10 per cent. and for Afro-Caribbeans it was 15 per cent. For men of Bangladeshi and Pakistani stock, it was 21 per cent.
That discrepancy in job opportunities did not result from the ethnic minorities being less motivated or less qualified than white workers. The truth is quite the opposite. The Commission for Racial Equality, reporting last month, analysed job seekers in the labour market and said:
The proportion of ethnic minorities with higher levels of qualification is slightly higher than the proportion of white people.
Yet, for those in this group—the most highly qualified, the group in which ethnic minorities have superior qualifications to their white contemporaries—their prospects of getting a job are exactly the same, that is, about half that of a white man or woman applying for the same post.
I do not believe that the Home Secretary will dispute that description, for the Government have acknowledged the existence of discrimination in employment. In February, they published a 10-point guide which they said would remedy what they coyly described as the
under representation of the ethnic minorities within the employed population".
Nobody, not even the Government, believes that those guidelines will even scratch the surface of the problem. The question that faces the nation is whether we are prepared for such discrimination to continue or are willing and now ready to initiate decisive action. Timing is vital, because jobs are what the black and Asian British need most. Given a fair chance, given an equal opportunity, they would get their fair share of employment. At the moment, equal opportunity is not available to them.
Highly motivated and unusually talented members of the ethnic minorities fight their way to success, but many of the others are caught in a cycle of double deprivation. They are disadvantaged because they are poor. They are either at the bottom of the earnings league or unemployed. Because of their race and their colour, they are unable to escape from their poverty.
I do not seek to diminish the importance of other policies that are designed to eliminate discrimination. It is, for example, wholly unacceptable, at least to me, that although Catholics, Jews and Quakers can set up denominational schools, Muslims are denied that right. It also seems intolerable to me that some hospitals and some schools do not provide meals that respect the religious needs of their Muslim patients and pupils. However, nothing is so important as providing a chance to escape from poverty, and that requires a radical revision of our employment legislation.
The present law is demonstrably inadequate because it is based on specific complaints by individuals, who have been denied employment or promotion because of their race. The onus should be shifted from isolated actions by victims of discrimination to a general obligation placed on employers. Whether that obligation is fulfilled cannot be calculated in terms of precise numbers. Quotas do not work and will not work, and we do not suggest them as a remedy.
We should require that all employers use their best endeavours to employ a work force who are genuinely representative of their local population. A strengthened Commission for Racial Equality should be empowered to monitor and enforce that process. As the CRE makes clear, that involves monitoring. Unless we know which


companies employ a genuine cross-section of the population, we will not be able to ensure a fair distribution of resources.
Ethnic monitoring has already been introduced into employment in parts of the health service, initially, I believe, when the the new Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Health. I therefore assume that that means that the Government are not opposed to ethnic monitoring in principle. Monitoring is essential if the ethnic minorities are to receive their fair share of jobs. I emphasise, because it is crucial to the debate, that it is a fair share of jobs that we demand. We do not ask for that form of positive discrimination that guarantees jobs to those who are not qualified to perform them or provides minorities with more than their proper share of national resources. All we ask is that action be taken to ensure that the black and Asian British receive what is rightly theirs—rightly theirs in terms of civil liberties and national resources.
The Government should and could immediately announce that they will no longer enter into contracts with companies that cannot demonstrate that they operate fair employment policies. That policy of contract compliance, as it is called, is no doubt regarded in some parts of the House as a revolutionary assault on the free market, but in America, which I suppose those same parts of the House still regard as the home and haven of free enterprise, contract compliance by Government agencies is taken for granted.
I have heard much talk of employers needing to choose the best employees available to them. I accept that without qualification, but statistics prove that the best candidate is often rejected because he or she is a member of the ethnic minorities. What is more, discrimination is often the product of ignorance rather than of outright prejudice. I am constantly being told that the black and Asian British are unemployed because they lack the necessary skills to obtain jobs. Again, statistics prove that that is palpable nonsense. The Government should encourage decent employers to search more diligently, and a decent Government would organise carefully targeted training programmes to fill the few gaps in the market that really exist.
Yet the Government, who claim in their amendment a determination to promote a multiracial society, have acted to prevent local councils from insisting that their contractors operate fair employment practices. Birmingham city council instructed its contractors to recruit from the areas in which it was working and have on its payroll a proper racial balance. The Government legislated to make that instruction illegal, as a result of which thousands of jobs were denied to the ethnic minorities in the west midlands.
Let no one suggest that in a free society we cannot impose pressures on employers that prevent them from engaging the employees of their absolute and unfettered choice. I have to tell the Home Secretary—I hope that I shall have the opportunity to tell him on many occasions as the next five years progress—that my Muslim and Sikh constituents are wholly unattracted by a theory of liberty that condemns them permanently to second-class status. If our theory of democracy ignores their basic needs, we should not be surprised if one day they reject our theory of democracy.
We need more positive employment policies because the ethnic minorities need jobs. We also need them to send a message to society. That essential message is easily described. The Government must demonstrate their abhorrence of prejudice and discrimination and their willingness to do more than just talk about such matters and to take action that will bring those evils to an end. The message we need to send out is that the black and Asian British are citizens of this country and should enjoy all the rights and opportunities of that citizenship, not in theory but in practice. I repeat that the platitudes must be replaced by action.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I have absolutely no quarrel with the philosophy that the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward—that we must treat all people in this country as equal citizens with equal opportunities. However, having listened carefully to what he said, I have a problem over how exactly he will persuade employers—unless he has some legal or governmental hacking or requirement—to tell the world whether they have the correct number of black or Asian employees compared with other employees unless employers use the criterion that they are now using, which is to employ the person who is best qualified for the job.

Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady began her intervention so courteously and supportively that I regret to have to tell her that, although she said that she was listening carefully to what I said, she was clearly not listening carefully enough. I set out and described—I will not bore the House by repeating it—the system of contract compliance which enables, say, the CRE to tell a large company, "We wish to inspect your record to make sure that your payroll is genuinely representative of the area from which you recruit."
I said that that required the ethnic monitoring to which the Home Secretary does not object in principle, since he allowed it at the Department of Health when he was a Minister there. It also requires the CRE to be able to say to a company that is not representative of the area from which it recruits, "Unless you use your best endeavours to recruit members of the ethnic minorities, you will certainly no longer qualify for Government contracts and you will be subject to the penalties that come from breaking the law that specifies fair employment practices." That happens in other countries. It is only because of the peculiar prejudices in this country that it has not been happening here for the last 20 years.

Ms. Joan Walley: My right hon. Friend has described precisely the problem confronting my local authority in Stoke-on-Trent. It wishes to do what he outlined, but is prevented from doing so because of the lack of legislation.

Mr. Hattersley: In my prejudiced way, I cited the example of Birmingham city council as an authority that has wanted to introduce certain policies and been prevented from doing so by the Government. Stoke is another example, and we know of other good local authorities that want to implement fair employment practices but have been prevented from carrying them out by the Government, who have had the nerve to table an amendment of undisguised piety on which we shall be required to vote at 7 o'clock.

Mr. John Bowis: The right hon. Gentleman courteously said that he wants this to be a level debate. We should therefore look for ways in which everyone can sort out the problems of racial discrimination. He will know that some changes can be made without legislation. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) pointed out that racism needs to be eradicated from the Labour party. Precisely what will the right hon. Gentleman do on behalf of his party to eradicate racism from the party, while the Conservative party looks for ways to encourage the Government to do as much as they can?

Mr. Hattersley: I suppose that I might just believe, in a moment of supreme charity, that that comment was intended to be constructive. But a more serious judgment would be that it was characteristically trivial. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I propose to say something worth saying.
The time for platitudes has gone and the time for action has come. The time has gone, too, for the figure manipulation which appears, by implication, in the amendment and which will no doubt be developed by the Home Secretary when he speaks. He draws the attention of the House and, he hopes, the country to the specific grants that have been made available for areas in which ethnic minorities have congregated. He must know that, putting aside those grants—most of them very small and all of them introduced with enormous fanfares—the loss of funds going into inner cities has been enormous and overwhelming because of the reduction of central Government general grant to local authorities.
As a result of that reduction, housing in central areas has deteriorated. School buildings have deteriorated and education committees have been unable to recruit extra teachers to teach English as a second language. Amenities in central areas have also deteriorated. The idea that the Government have put money at the disposal of local authorities that want to help in those matters is not simply untrue but the diametric opposite of the truth.
The Government must decide in the next five years—I hope that they will feel calmer about making a decision in the knowledge that the general election is behind them —whether they believe in a multiracial society. In such a society, diversity is welcomed, not merely tolerated, and the culture, customs and religions of minority groups are respected. In such a society, laws accommodate minority religions and mores. Above all else, a multiracial society does not treat minorities as a problem.
Nothing has done so much harm to community relations in this country as the idea encouraged, I fear, by Government policies, that black and Asian British are a liability. They are not. The idea that ethnic minorities are a problem, with all its damaging results, has been encouraged by successive Home Secretaries. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) was civilised, patrician and courteous about it. The Lord Waddington was not. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley saw it as a political opportunity. However, in their different ways, each fostered the disastrous notion that black and Asian British were such a detriment to society that the Government must use every power at their disposal to prevent any more of them from entering the country, whatever their legitimate claim for entry.
I believe quite the opposite because of my experience. I spend much of my time on the Stratford road in the Birmingham constituency of Sparkbrook and I see how that road has been rehabilitated by the ethnic minorities:

the shops are Asian; the restaurants are Kashmiri; the banks are Indian and Pakistani. They have rebuilt that heart in the centre of the community. Anyone who thinks that their entry into Birmingham is anything but an advantage is guided by pure, blind prejudice.
I hope that there can be more positive understanding of that contribution. It must be related to our attitude towards immigration. These days when we speak of immigration we mean a process that is directly relevant to the lives of British citizens living in Britain. Primary immigration, whether or not it was right in the dying days of the empire, is now over for ever. The argument about immigration now involves British citizens living in Britain—
the right of wives to be reunited with their husbands and the right of British citizens to be visited by their friends and relations—a right which is still too often denied to the black and Asian British.
One of my constituents is, on the evidence of a great national hospital, dying of cancer. His son has been refused permission to visit him as the immigration service, while accepting the diagnosis—it could hardly have done otherwise—doubts the son's motives for wishing to visit this country. I do not believe that that man would have been excluded from this country had he been white, and I fear that the figures confirm that unhappy conclusion. Last year, one Canadian out of every 4,219 applicants was refused a visitor's permit, whereas one in 32 Jamaicans was refused a temporary visa. The difference was not in the applicants' intentions but in the reaction of the immigration service.
If the Home Secretary truly intended to implement the high hopes of his amendment, he would send an immediate message to the immigration service, particularly those members serving in posts abroad. He would tell them that the Government do not expect them to use every means at their disposal to refuse application for entry, whatever the merits of the application. I have no doubt that the service believes that the present Government expect it positively to look for reasons why visa applications should be refused. That is the tone set by previous Home Secretaries, and by the Government appealing against a tribunal decision that judged a man to be improperly excluded. That impression was also given by the tone and character of the speeches made by the previous Home Secretary. The main reason for this debate is that the present Home Secretary has an opportunity to make it clear that he expects genuine applicants to be allowed entry into this country. I hope that he will say that in exact terms this afternoon.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case highlighted in The Independent of a citizen from the United States who came over here? There was no reason to suspect that he was other than a visitor; he was employed in the United States, where he had status and a home. However, he was refused entry and accused of being associated with the recent disturbances in America. There was no reason to disbelieve what he said, as he went out of the way to publicise his position. One can only conclude—as one of our former colleagues did in a letter to The Independent—that the man was refused entry because of his colour and had he been white there would have been absolutely no problem.

Mr. Hattersley: The problem with such examples is that they are all too frequent and we can all add to them. I shall


take this opportunity to give another even more extraordinary example. A professor of economics who had been lecturing in Germany was flying back to Canada. On the aeroplane he met another professor of economics from this country. The English professor told him that he had a PhD student who specialised in a subject on which the Canadian professor had given his lecture.
The Canadian professor was persuaded to get off the aircraft at Heathrow to talk to the PhD student. The professor was immediately arrested, retained at Heathrow for two days and put on an aeroplane back to Canada. All the information about the professor's qualifications was available, but unfortunately he was black. It gives me no pleasure, but only regret, to state that had the professor been a white Canadian, that would not have happened to him.
I asked the Home Secretary to send a message to his officials, and I should like to hear him send a message to the rest of the public service, that its members should give equal treatment to all. We know—the evidence is depressingly extensive—that in social security offices all over Britain, black and Asian British are asked to prove their entitlement to benefit, whereas members of the majority community are not asked to do so. Evidence can also be provided to show that some officers refuse to issue national insurance numbers to members of ethnic minorities about to enter the labour market until they can prove that they are British by birth or registration. We believe that such practices are intolerable.
The Government should also make it clear that public housing must not be allocated according to rules that in any way discriminate against one group in society. The Liberal council in Tower Hamlets simply refused to rehouse Bangladeshi residents and its action was ruled unlawful in the High Court. No doubt later in the debate we shall hear that council action condemned. Some councils still have qualifying regulations which, by coincidence or by design, discriminate against minorities. Such regulations should be prohibited by law.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tower Hamlets council recently started to ask applicants who arrived at the homeless persons unit to prove their immigration status, thereby acting illegally as an immigration authority?

Mr. Hattersley: That will have to be the final intervention, because many hon. Members wish to speak. My hon. Friend's intervention illustrates the general point that there is a tendency by officialdom when confronted with a black, brown or yellow face to suspect that the person is not a genuine British citizen and to require him to prove his status. That should be prevented by law.

Ms. Liz Lynne (Rochdale): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the general election campaign some members of the Asian community in Rochdale were threatened and intimidated by some members of the Labour party? In one case, a man who was canvassing for the Liberal Democrats was told by a member of the Labour party that he would lose his grant unless he stopped such canvassing.

Mr. Hattersley: If that happened, I condemn it without qualification. I say "If it happened." I have named the

Liberal council that discriminated openly and unlawfully against Bangladeshis and I hope that the hon. Lady or a more senior member of her party will condemn that action that she has described.

Ms. Lynne: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way to the hon. Lady again, as I want to make some progress.
There are still qualifying regulations in all areas which are imposed to require the black and Asian British to prove their status. That is wholly intolerable. The Government's belief that anything is justified in the name of immigration control was illustrated by one of the meanest acts in the history of British administration. Four years ago, some children who had been denied entry to this country, because the Government did not accept that they were related as claimed, proved through DNA tests that the Government were wrong. Those children who were still under 18 when the Government were confounded were allowed to enter Britain as the law required. However, the young men and women who had passed that age—the age at which admission is normally agreed—while undergoing the DNA tests to prove that the Government were in error were denied entry.
The only conclusion to be drawn from such petty tyranny is that the Government believe that they must keep the numbers down at all costs, irrespective of the device that is necessary to achieve that aim. That attitude sends quite the wrong signals to the ethnic minorities and to the wider population.
The second and even more damaging illustration of the official attitude to ethnic minorities concerns the reunion of husbands and wives. The immense suffering caused by that policy is, I fear, the product of the Government's failure to understand that marriage may be contracted in a variety of ways and still be lawful. In the official mind, the arranged marriage is confused with a bogus marriage. In a proper multiracial society the law would be able to accommodate marriage customs based on a variety of traditions.
The primary-purpose rule by which applicants who wish to join their wives in Britain are judged is intellectually absurd and morally indefensible. A woman with British citizenship, who theoretically enjoys all the rights that such citizenship provides, is denied the right to live in this country with her lawful husband if, in the opinion of an immigration officer, the man's real object of coming here is to live in Great Britain. Simply stated, the immigration officer has the right in law to read an applicant's mind. Having formed a subjective opinion, the immigration authorities will allow entry only if on appeal the applicant can prove that the immigration officer misjudged and misread his mind. Normally and, I fear, intentionally that is an impossible task.
The case history of this provision shows how squalid the process has become. I have read case note after case note and they all read in a similar way. The applicant is asked his opinion of the United Kingdom. He answers, no doubt with the hope of ingratiating himself with the officer, that he has always admired the United Kingdom and always wanted to live here. On the evidence of that answer it is judged that he contracted the marriage only to enable him to live and work in the United Kingdom, and a legitimate and genuine marriage is separated, almost for ever.


I emphasise that the marriages of which I speak are genuine. They have been contracted in ways to which hon. Members are not accustomed. However, it is the obligation of a multiracial society to accept and allow in law the mores of the minorites, rather than impose upon them the will and wishes of the majority. The genuine nature of the marriages is often demonstrated by years of separation and devotion.
Six months ago I proposed that the primary-purpose rule should he replaced by a more objective test of a marriage's genuine status. One of the criteria against which I wanted applicants to be judged was the constancy of the partners. I have constituents who were married five or six years ago. The husbands have been forced to remain in Pakistan and have seen their wives during a couple of brief holidays since the wedding. The wives have given birth to one or two children. The husbands have supported their families as best they can with remittances. Yet, the immigration service persists in saying that those couples are not genuinely married.
In the judgment in Kumar, the High Court required the Government to take into account what is described as intervening devotion. Some married couples have been reunited by taking the Government to court, obtaining judicial review and being brought together because of the judgment in Kumar. That is a long and often expensive process. It is time that the Government accepted that judgment from the beginning and applied it to all applicants who want to come and remain in this country.
The European Court is now considering a second specific case—the application of Mr. Surinder Singh. If, as is widely assumed, it finds in his favour, it will be possible for a British citizen whose spouse has been denied entry into Great Britain to live with his wife or her husband for a brief period in France or Germany and then move, without let or hindrance, into the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that already an English woman of Kashmiri origin can move to Paris or Rome and use Community law to be reunited with her husband from Pakistan immediately and without any qualification. If, as seems likely. Europe is to make nonsense of the primary-purpose rule, it would be to the Government's credit to take the initiative and do away with the dreadful thing immediately.
It is worth noting that the treatment thought appropriate to British women who marry foreign husbands is regarded by the European Community as unacceptable for citizens of other European countries. Britain is required to treat Community nationals better than we treat our own people. A French woman living in London who marries a citizen of what was once a French colony has the automatic and unfettered right to be joined in this country by her Moroccan or Algerian husband. A British woman does not have the same right to be joined in Britain by a Kenyan, Kashmiri or Indian husband. That is absurd as well as shameful. Nothing would so enhance the Home Secretary's reputation than for him to say today that he will bring that absurd shame to an immediate end.
The defence of the primary-purpose rule is that to replace it with objective criteria would result in some bogus marriages slipping through the net and, although it is rarely admitted, 100, 200 or 300 more young men would thus be allowed into this country. I make my position clear. The Government are so obsessed with keeping the wrong applicants out that they are always casual and sometimes callous about making sure that the right

applicants get in. I am certainly prepared to accept the increase in numbers that would be involved in genuine marriages being reunited in this country in the way that they should be.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, I suspect, forgets that the general election is over. Nevertheless, I shall let him make his point about numbers.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and grateful to be here after the election. Will he clarify how he works out the figure of 300 extra people coming here if we abolish the primary-purpose rule? That is humbug. Perhaps he remembers that on 5 April, before the election, The People issued an Asian edition and an English one. The front page of the Asian issue was plastered with the right hon. Gentleman's promises. He promised everything under the sun, including abolition of the primary-purpose rule. The English edition did not mention a word. Does not that show that the right hon. Gentleman has no answers and is trying to give different messages to different audiences?

Mr. Hattersley: I am open to all sorts of accusations this afternoon, one of which is going on for too long, but the accusation that I have been trying to hide the immigration policies that I support seems difficult to sustain. I believe, and the hon. Gentleman can put it in his election manifesto in four or five years' time, that we must allow the entry of those men who are genuinely married and are genuinely separated from wives with whom they should be reunited. If that involves an increase in numbers, so be it. That is the necessity and obligation of a civilised society.
The test that the Government now face is their real belief in a multiracial society and, in consequence, their real belief in freedom. Sometimes, the ethnic minorities will wish to behave in a way that the majority population finds unnatural and uncomfortable. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise, for that is the nature of the multiracial society. I, for instance, am not an enthusiast for single-sex schools or for religious schools. I do not like the idea of single-sex secondary education or religious-based secondary education. The question is not whether we as individuals like or dislike a proposal but whether we are prepared to allow members of minorities to make decisions for themselves and to run their lives according to their traditions, religions and mores, as long as in doing so they do not damage the interests of the community as a whole.
I fear that our willingness to allow that freedom to ethnic minorities is singularly absent from Government policy. I fear that we have neglected the interests of those citizens in a way that is to this country's shame and may, over the years, rebound enormously to our practical and material disadvantage.
The motion demands that we accept that the black and Asian British are what they are—full and equal citizens of the United Kingdom, with all the rights that that implies and the share of resources that it should provide for them. Labour Members will go on proclaiming the necessity to change policy until that desirable situation is genuinely and fully brought about.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
commends the Government's determination to work towards a multi-racial society, to which all ethnic minority communities contribute fully and in which all enjoy equal opportunities, as evidenced by their policies for tackling racial discrimination and disadvantage and for promoting equal opportunities, and by expenditure programmes directed at the special needs of ethnic minorities.
I am open to correction in my understanding of the timing of these matters, but I think that I am right in saying that this may be the last appearance at the Dispatch Box of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He shakes his head. I look forward to debating with him again. The world will change when that moment comes, because for as long as I have been a Member I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman make a speech from the Back Benches; he has always been a Front Bencher. I therefore thought that he might have planned his swansong on this subject, and I was going to pay tribute to him. If he is now promising me an onslaught on another subject in the near future, I will gladly give way to him.

Mr. Hattersley: I was hoping that the Home Secretary would confirm that he will withdraw the representation of the people legislation that we are due to debate on Monday, when I hoped to debate with him again.

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind me of that, which at least will be a more partisan discussion.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly began by saying that I had puzzled over the motion before the House and wondered why he was raising ethnic minority issues when I thought that it might be his last speech, forgetting next Monday. I am now reassured that he wishes to make a speech on a matter about which he holds strong views, which, in principle, are not removed from mine.
The right hon. Gentleman is fairly critical of the fact that I thought his motion was partisan and therefore tabled an amendment to it. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman, probably like myself, does not have a non-partisan reputation in the House. He may think that his motion was disingenuous and a statement of the obvious, but I shall seek to persuade him and the House that, whatever problems may face the ethnic minorities, it is not true that they receive less than their fair share of national resources. The House must correct that notion. It is not altogether non-partisan to call on the Government to introduce and implement policies to eliminate the disadvantages of such citizens because the implication is that we have not already been doing that vigorously.
I shall seek to persuade the right hon. Gentleman and the House that not only is the Government amendment not merely a platitude—as he said—because its sentiments are eminently fair, but that it is a more accurate statement of the position because it commends the Government and congratulates them on what they are doing and on having such forceful policies to tackle racial discrimination and disadvantage.
Nevertheless, it is important that we begin by putting on record what has not always been put on record either by the right hon. Gentleman or by other members of the Opposition. Hon. Members of all political persuasions are

by and large agreed on the principles that should govern a multiracial, multicultural society. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I frequently face attacks, from Labour politicians in particular, suggesting that the Government's policies are racially motivated and that we discriminate in the policies that we adopt, but that is not the case. When that is said in the heat of political debate, it does not do the slightest good to race relations by encouraging that belief among ethnic minority constituents.
I think that the House agrees overwhelmingly on what should happen in a society such as ours. It should be acknowledged that we are talking about ways and means because we all agree that platitudes are not enough and that action is called for, as the right hon. Gentleman says. The Government's aim is to have a fair and integrated multiracial society. We are determined to stamp out racial discrimination so that all individuals, whatever their race, colour or creed, can have equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. We are prepared to debate the methods by which we achieve that, and that is what this debate should be about.

Mr. Max Madden: The Secretary of State will agree that it is most important to reconcile deeds with words, so will he reflect on the reduction of section 11 funding which has afflicted many parts of the country, including Bradford, and which has clearly adversely affected the disadvantaged, especially the ethnic minorities? Has he any plans to restore or, indeed, to increase the funding so that local authorities such as mine can actively assist ethnic minority communities?

Mr. Clarke: If I may, I shall deal more fully with section 11 later if I do not succumb to the same temptation as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and give way too often. The total amount of section 11 funding has not been reduced, if one leaves aside an exceptional payment to clear some old ILEA claims, which was made, I think, two years ago. It is difficult to distribute the funding, but we have taken steps to target it better. I shall return to that matter in due course.
Let me deal with one or two issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised with regard to specific actions. I do not want to spend too long on asylum and immigration matters because we shall have plenty of opportunity to discuss them this Session when the Asylum Bill reappears before the House, which it will do shortly. [Interruption.] It will shortly, and the reason is not that which I heard the right hon. Gentleman give the other day. It is because we have a longer Session ahead of us and after the election we are taking a look at asylum and immigration matters to ensure that when we reintroduce the Bill we have the opportunity to tackle all the deficiencies in the immigration and asylum system. We are also reflecting a little on some debates, especially those in another place.
I confirm that the guiding principle in dealing with immigration cases is that genuine cases whom this country is happy to admit, whether under the terms of our international obligations towards refugees or of our obligations to those who are entitled to come to this country as dependants, should be admitted. I should like them to be admitted in a more straightforward and less protracted way than is sometimes the case at present as a result of delays in the system which are inflicted on us by dealing with many less well-founded cases of people who are undoubtedly not entitled to come to this country.


We must, therefore, examine the system to ensure that it is effective and fair, that it delivers prompter decisions, thereby enabling us to deal properly with those whom we are happy to welcome to our shores, and that it deals fairly within the rule of law with those whom we are not happy to welcome.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will give way just twice more, after which, as I said that I would not talk about immigration, I will not give way again. We shall otherwise spend the whole time on the subject.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the delay in the introduction of the Asylum Bill is causing some concern to Conservative Members, despite the spurious objections by the Opposition? Will he confirm that the delay does not mean that the situation is worsening, and that it is actually rather better than it was when the Bill was introduced before the general election? Will he also confirm that he is confident that, when the Bill comes to the House, the situation will be more under control than it was in the earlier part of the year?

Mr. Clarke: The situation is slightly better than it was when the Bill was introduced because the number of applicants has come down. However, that cannot be relied on and the Bill's provisions are still required. There will be no great delay; the Bill will be reintroduced. We are wholly committed to the policies we enunciated in the Bill before the election and we are taking the opportunity to look a little more widely to sec what other causes of delay in the system can be tackled when the Bill is reintroduced. I assure my hon. Friend and most people interested in seeing our obligations under the convention carried out properly that we propose to introduce a Bill that will enable us to deal more promptly with those who are entitled to asylum here, and to reject more clearly and more quickly those who are not. That is in everyone's interests, and that principle could be, and properly should be, applied across the area of applications for immigration and settlement.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Home Secretary agree with the general principle put forward by the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary and introduced the Immigration Bill? He said that good race relations in Britain depended on the maintenance of very strict and oppressive immigration controls. Does the Home Secretary also agree with the statement of his right hon. Friend on that occasion that the immigration service was providing a good customer service?

Mr. Clarke: I am absolutely certain that a slight misquotation of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary took place there. My views on the matter and those of my right hon. Friend are almost identical. I believe that good race relations in this country depend on, the maintenance of a strict system of immigration control. They most definitely do not depend on an oppressive system. Reform, such as the Asylum Bill, is required to ensure that the system is not oppressive to the genuine cases because it is unable to cope with the non-genuine. That is the purpose of the reform.
I believe that the immigration service provides a good service. The difficulty in the House when individual cases are cited, as we experienced a few minutes ago, is that it is not the way to approach the whole question of immigration policy. There is a system, which we seek to improve, under which there are prompt appeal hearings for the cases that will, undoubtedly, go wrong. However. newspaper accounts and partial accounts by people who have been turned away of why they believe they were turned away often prove to he incorrect.
The case quoted by the hon. Member for Walsall. North (Mr. Winnick) was answered by the head of the immigration service. The account of it in the newspapers was very partial and was given by a man who arrived with a huge collection of belongings, including his own car, for what he said was a short business visit.

Mr. Winnick: Do I take it that the Home Secretary studied the whole case? I recognise that the Home Secretary and his Ministers cannot study individual cases all the time, and I do not suggest that they should do so. However, in view of the publicity that the case received and the way in which the response came from the immigration service, may I take it that all the papers were looked at, if not by the Home Secretary, by his Ministers? There remains a good deal of disquiet, not only about this case, but about others such as that quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). There is a feeling that not all people are treated alike and that the question of colour comes into it.

Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that the case was examined very closely, because of the nature of the allegations. No Minister or member of the immigration service would accept a system of immigration control that worked unfairly and discriminately against someone purely because of that person's colour. That had been alleged, with the result that the case was examined carefully not only by the head of the immigration department but by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill (Mr. Wardle), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who now handles such matters and who took a close interest in the affair. I also considered it, to a slightly lesser extent; I kept in touch with my hon. Friend.
We were entirely satisfied with the explanation that was given. If it is still contested, it will be open to the applicant to appeal. It is not helpful, however, to try to pour abuse on the whole system, relying on partial newspaper stories supplied by a journalist who listens to what the complainant says, but is not prepared to listen to explanations. We shall present legislation that will be fair to the genuine applicant—fair to everyone, indeed—but the system will be governed by the rule of law. We shall seek to get rid of the delays, the legalisms and some of the wilder allegations.
The primary-purpose rule is subject to litigation at present, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has said. I know that he has always felt strongly about the issue, but I do not agree with what he said about the logic of the case. He challenged me to produce a logical justification. In my opinion, arguments about whether marriages are bogus are, to an extent, immaterial. It is not for me, or for any other Minister in this or any other Government, to express views about whether arranged marriages are a good or a bad thing; we all have our views on that, but it is not what lies behind the rule. People are


free to marry for whatever reason they choose. In my experience, people have married for a variety of reasons, not all of which have struck me as frightfully good—but that is the ultimate civil liberty, which is available to everyone regardless of background.
It is perfectly logical for a country or a Parliament to object if two people from different countries marry and the main reason for the marriage—there may, of course, be others—has nothing to do with romantic or family attachment. If the marriage is intended to enable a man who otherwise would not be allowed to live here to enter the country for that purpose, surely there is nothing illogical in telling that man, "Of course you are free to marry, but that does not necessarily allow you to get around immigration controls that should apply to you."
We can argue about individual cases. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, for instance, has said that he knows of cases in which the wrong decision was made. The argument, however, does not apply only to Indian men and arranged marriages; there are also the so-called mail-order brides, south-east Asian women who marry Englishmen. I do not consider it illogical to introduce a rule that allows people to enter into such marriages if they wish to do so, but makes it clear that it is not necessarily just for immigration rules to be "collapsed" so that someone whose principal purpose in marrying is to get around the immigration rules can gain admission. We shall wait to find out what the litigation produces, but I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's strong views in this regard.

Mr. Hattersley: I assure the Home Secretary that there is no disagreement between us on one point. Anyone who marries simply in order to get into this country does not qualify for entry; the logical debate concerns how it is decided what the reason for the marriage was. What I have asked the Home Secretary to defend, in logic, is a system that allows one human being to judge the mind of another on wholly subjective evidence-not on the evidence presented to him, as I think the Minister is now pointing out, but on his own subjective judgment.
As the Home Secretary clearly wishes to dispute such points of logic, will he explain the justice, as well as the rationality, of an immigration service that allows a Frenchwoman living in this country to bring in her Madagascan husband, but does not allow an Englishwoman living in this country to bring in her Pakistani husband? How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman possibly justify that?

Mr. Clarke: Let me deal with the first question. [Interruption.] The second is an anomaly—the first is easier to deal with—and does not derive from our rules.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was close to agreeing with me. We are discussing whether a person has an overwhelming human right to come here—I paraphrase slightly, but this is not a court of law—if his main reason for marrying is to get around the immigration rules. There may be subsidiary reasons, but the main reason—they would not have married except for the fact—is that one wanted to remain here. That is the logical argument for the rules. The right hon. Gentleman was saying that there was no logical argument, and then he asked, "How do you judge that without trying to get into somebody's mind?"

Throughout the system of law and administration, trying on the evidence to judge somebody else's state of mind frequently has to be subjective.
For example, let us consider the case of someone who says that he is coming here as a visitor. He may have some other reason for coming here. A person who asserts that he is coming here as a visitor is sometimes refused because, on the evidence available and in all the circumstances, the immigration officer says, "No. This chap may be coming here partly because he wants to visit English cathedrals or partly because he wants to visit his sick mother, but his main reason is that he does not want to go back when he is finished doing those things. He wishes to come here and settle."
Nobody has ever argued that cases such as that should be refused. All such cases involve difficult judgments about what is someone's intention, in all the circumstances, not just what they say that their intentions are. That is why it is a sensitive matter in which we have to construct careful legislation and have an appeals system, which is what we should be talking about.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have already given way far more often on immigration and the primary-purpose rule than I said I would.
Going back to the first and most difficult issue, many points were raised. I reassert that, in the other matters to which I shall refer and steadily work through, my main aim in respect of race relations will be to build upon—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the second point?"] I obviously look forward to an enlivening and—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members know quite well that, if a Minister does not give way, hon. Members must resume their seat.

Mr. Clarke: I look forward to further debates on immigration. They will obviously be lively, but they make progress. In the past half hour, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has conceded that there is logic in the policy behind the primary-purpose rule, and he has at least stepped back to his second point—his lesser point, in my opinion—which is on the difficulties of applying it. We shall return to that matter in due course. We have agreed that the aim in this aspect of race relations is to build upon, help to strengthen further—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may assist you and the House to know that our concern is that the Home Secretary has failed to answer the second part of a two-part question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Will the Home Secretary now deal with the matter of a British woman seeking—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot judge how satisfactory a Minister's answers might be, otherwise our proceedings would be endless.

Mr. Clarke: Given that, on the first point, the Opposition have been bowled middle stump, they seem to be extremely anxious to try to scratch around for another one which they know perfectly well derives from Community law and not from British law. I do not think


that most of the Opposition would wish to fall in line with French or Community practice in many of those race relations matters. They know perfectly well that British race relations law—British immigration law, I dare say —is superior in almost all respects to that on the continent.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Clarke: No; I must move on.

Mr. Turner: rose—

Mr. Clarke: No; I am moving on. The hon. Gentleman may ask me a question some other time, but I am moving on.

Mr. Turner: Will the Home Secretary please give way?

Mr. Clarke: On the question that was—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Secretary of State, would you resume your seat while I am standing, please? I have very recently made the point that if a Minister, or indeed any other hon. Member who has the floor, does not give way, it is his or her right so to do.

Mr. Clarke: I apologise for not sitting down, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your rising is the only thing that gets the hon. Member for Wolverhampon, South-East (Mr. Turner) to sit down.
The question of Muslim schools was also raised. It is simply not the case that education policy in any way discriminates against Muslim schools—of course it does not. I shall explain exactly what the position is. Voluntary-aided schools exist for denominational, confessional education. It is open to anyone who has such a school to maintain it and to anyone to apply to open a new one. In my opinion— I am sure that my opinion is indistinguishable from that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and from that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who speaks on education for the Opposition—it is right that we should defend the right of parents who wish to have access to denominational education, if it can be provided, be they Roman Catholic, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim or of any other religious denomination. That is applied throughout Britain, regardless of religious confession.
It is difficult to open a new voluntary-aided school because of the rules which are applied to all such schools. There have been two Muslim applications in recent years. One was withdrawn. The only one that was turned down was the Islamia school in Brent in north London. It was turned down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who was Secretary of State for Education and Science before me. The criterion applied to that school were exactly the same as those applied to any other school.
The first criteria is whether the school will follow the national curriculum. We must be candid. That is a question that has to be asked in a fair number of the Muslim applications. Although it does not apply to the Brent school, private Muslim schools have sailed near to teaching the female pupils domestic science, Koranic studies and not a lot of other things which should be taught under the national curriculum. It is not discriminatory to insist that the national curriculum should be applied.
Obviously, the usual judgments are made about whether the school is well run, but the key criterion is whether there is a demand for places in the education authority. For schools of all denominations it has been the practice of the Department of Education for many years to turn down applications for new school places, which would cause an extra burden on public funds and create extra school places, in boroughs or counties where there is already a surplus, which in some cases the local authority is trying to tackle. That is where the Islamia school went down. I will not say any more about it, because it is subject to litigation. I have missed it because the decision was taken before my time and the matter has been before the courts ever since. I have no doubt that my successor is contemplating the advice of the judges to look at the matter again.
I know for a fact that the decision of my predecessor was not based on any rule which he would not apply to a Jewish, Catholic or Anglican school. We are talking about the relevance of the surplus places argument in the application for the Islamia school.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will give way on schools. Then I shall move on to some of the other matters raised by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook.

Mr. Boateng: The Secretary of State outlined the vacant places criterion and said that Muslim schools or schools of any other denomination are permitted to open only where there are no vacant places. Does that same criterion apply to the imposition of city technology colleges on local education authorities? If not, why not?

Mr. Clarke: That is pure education policy. It has nothing to do with ethnic minority policy. It applies because CTCs—[Interruption.] I will argue about city technology colleges if it is in order to do so. The criterion is applied because city technology colleges are a valuable acquisition of educational provision in areas, some of which are governed by Labour authorities, where the present level of provision is fairly appalling. CTCs take large numbers of ethnic minority pupils.
To take an obvious example, in Nottingham the CTC is providing educational opportunities to people from deprived parts of that city and especially from ethnic minority families who would not have had those opportunities if the policy of the local Labour council to resist the opening of that CTC had been successful. To that extent, CTCs are relevant to this debate.
It is wrong and positively unhelpful to good race relations for anyone to imply for political reasons, as a few did at the last election, that decisions on Muslim schools are taken according to some criteria which discriminate against Muslims. I gave the go-ahead to a new Jewish voluntary-aided school in north-east London shortly before the election.

Mr. Vaz: Ah.

Mr. Clarke: I will not comment on that "Ah" from the hon. Gentleman. We take the same view with Jews as with Muslims or Christians.

Mr. Vaz: No.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, we do. Our discussions on that school were about surplus places in that part of London. A great argument broke out. The applicants had to satisfy me that the school would not provide surplus places before the Jewish school was allowed to go ahead. That remains the rule. Undoubtedly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is reflecting on it in his new departmental responsibility in the light of what the judges had to say about the Brent case.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook rightly raised the issue of jobs, which I believe is at the core of the debate. Discrimination in job opportunities is the greatest handicap that can fall on any community. It can have wider consequences. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government, both under the former Prime Minister and certainly under the present Prime Minister, believe in extending the fullest opportunity equally to every section of the community. We want to open to people from every background equal opportunity to enter any part of the labour market and go right to the top.
I do not intend to spend too long on the arguments about finance, but that is one part of the Opposition motion which I challenge.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: No. I must get on.
We undoubtedly spend a disproportionate amount of public finance on those parts of urban areas where the ethnic minorities are most strongly concentrated. A lot of that money goes to seeking to redress inequalities of opportunity. It goes further than that. I cannot understand the suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's motion that ethnic minorities do not receive a fair share of resources. I do not object to spending a slightly disproportionate share of resources in areas where the ethnic minorities tend to be concentrated.
Apparently the right hon. Gentleman's basis for saying that the ethnic minorities receive less than their fair share of resources is the changes in local government finance. I strongly disagree. I find the details of local government finance one of the more tedious subjects to debate in the House, but I have to do it on occasions. However, his arguments on local government finance cannot be used on that limb.
All our inner-city policies, which he dismissed as "specific grants", lead to huge sums of public money going to inner city areas, expressly to redress the disadvantages that we are discussing. I was involved in launching the action for cities programme a few years ago. I do not apologise for what the right hon. Gentleman called razzamatazz. We were trying to draw to the attention of the people intended to benefit from the programme what was available to them. We reckon that we have spent about £10 billion across Government Departments on urban and inner-city policies since 1985–86.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment calculates that across Departments expenditure now runs at £4 billion a year on projects of one sort or another. I helped to set up the task forces. We also have the much bigger city action teams. My Department has set up the safer cities programme and there are other initiatives to which I shall refer. We are spending a great deal on redressing the disadvantages.
To increase job opportunities we need information to identify the problems. Ethnic monitoring has been referred to. I most certainly approve of ethnic monitoring as a means of taking action on discrimination and, indeed, as part of any positive employment policy which a good employer should follow.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Clarke: When I have finished this part of my speech on ethnic monitoring.
The Government have advocated ethnic monitoring to major employers through the Department of Employment as good practice for many years. I introduced ethnic monitoring into the collection of the unemployment statistics when I was at the Department of Employment in order to provide the statistics which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook cited. I am glad that he approves of it because at the time there was tremendous opposition from black radical groups who thought that it was a racist measure to count the ethnic origin of the unemployed. We got through all that and people now realise that ethnic monitoring is a positive weapon. It does not give any answers. It does not necessarily say that discrimination is taking place or that disadvantage is suffered. But it causes people to ask the questions once one has monitored the incidence of people from ethnic minorities in different categories. I am in favour of it. Indeed, I introduced it into the Department of Employment and into the national health service. We continue to urge it.
We disagree with the Opposition on the contract compliance which some Labour local authorities wish to write into their municipal contracts, in line with American experience. One could get into a technical debate. I have been involved in putting local labour clauses into inner city projects such as in Handsworth in the city of Birmingham of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. But I am not persuaded of the value of the American model of contract compliance. Undoubtedly the Commission for Racial Equality will come back later this year and make proposals. It is interested in the issue. I do not believe that the American experience is all one way. Most hon. Members will support what the right hon. Member and I have just said about the value of ethnic monitoring as a tool to ensure that one does not inadvertently discriminate and to ensure that one knows where one is with one's work force.
It would be a more difficult and dangerous course to go beyond that and to make it a legal requirement to have a target number of people from ethnic backgrounds in the work force. Indeed, that could backfire, contrary to the intentions of those who propose it, because it is damaging to a company's race relations if the white work force believe that the black work force is only there because the law has required their admittance, regardless of suitability for the job, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said in her intervention. That is why I am not in favour of such contract compliance and the CRE will have to argue strongly to move the Government in that direction.

Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended ethnic monitoring in the civil service, and that has been carried out to good effect. Equally, the Select Committee's study of the American


experience some years ago confirmed that, broadly speaking, their compliance measures did not work and that there was substantial and wilful evasion. That is why we did not recommend it for this country.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because his Select Committee is a respected cross-party committee. I also studied the situation in the United States again and came to the same conclusion. Some Labour councils—

Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene and I am pleased to hear of his support for ethnic monitoring. Would he recommend it to the district authority that he represents? Can he explain to the House the experience of the black housing association which sought to tackle inner city inequalities by acquiring properties in his constituency? The leader of the housing committee there went on record as saying that he was opposed to the "dumping of dross" in his area. As a result of his interventions and the reallocation of nomination rights to the district housing authority—without ethnic monitoring—none of the families allocated to those properties by the council were black.

Mr. Clarke: That matter is more suitable for an Adjournment debate, or for Nottingham city council or Rushcliffe borough council. The hon. Gentleman knows that I totally disagree with everything that he has just said. It is true that a Nottingham housing association acquired property in my constituency without notifying the local authority that it proposed to do so. The association failed to follow any housing corporation guidelines on how to behave in such a situation. As everyone with experience of inner cities or race relations policy knows, some organisations in the field—in this case it was a black housing association—simply accuse all critics of racialism when the organisation's incompetence, discourtesy and refusal to provide agreements is pointed out. I am glad to say that the matter was to some extent sorted out by the Housing Corporation, but we should not go further into our local battles.
I shall move on to the subject of jobs and the position of ethnic minorities from top to bottom in the employment market. We need to create a society that aims for equality and opportunity. Whether by monitoring or by some other means, we need to consider the opportunities for people to be appointed to influential posts at the top of society.

Mr. David Trimble: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I shall not.
I agree that our main aim must be to help to strengthen the positive contribution of ethnic minorities to British society, which is already important in business, the professions and many other walks of life. I welcome it and I am keen that that positive contribution should be increased. If we are to strengthen the position of ethnic minorities in this country, it is important for members of minorities to emerge in leading roles in private industry, public service and the professions.

Mr. Trimble: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way again.
There is a large and successful Asian entrepreneurial and professional middle class. I have watched their emergence in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We need a stronger black middle class,

with more black business and professional people whom able black youngsters could identify with and seek to emulate. I am glad to say that more influential public bodies are including increasing numbers of ethnic minority members. We must increase those numbers, not as a token gesture but because of the personal contribution that the people appointed can make.
The number of appointments of justices from the ethnic minority communities has exceeded their proportion in the population age groups from which appointments are usually made, especially in recent years. I am glad to be able to say that the first magistrate of Chinese origin in this country was recently appointed in my constituency.
Many people from all minorities are rising in the professions. We welcome the few Members of Parliament from ethnic minorities, but we are agreed that there are not enough; all parties want their numbers to increase. Therefore, we must seek to encourage more able members of the ethnic minorities to climb to the top of the ladder, and I am sure that that will happen in time.

Mr. Trimble: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way. I have given way far too often already, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having given way to an Ulster Member.
Our aim must eventually be to achieve a position where we cease to comment on the numbers of people from ethnic minorities in leading roles in society because their presence is taken for granted and their influence is assured. Race has no real relevance to someone's position in the sort of society that we wish to be.
We must look again at business and encourage the talent and entrepreneurial flair that exists within ethnic minority businesses, which must be allowed into the mainstream of the economy and encouraged to improve their access to business development services. Small businesses are vital to the growth of our economy and minority-led and other local enterprise agencies, funded under the Home Office ethnic minority business initiative, have shown that there is demand from the expanding ethnic minority business base for support services that acknowledge and are sensitive to their specific needs.

Mr. Trimble: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not give way. The ethnic minority business programme, which is not strong in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, is continuing. We must remove the obstacles which can prevent minority businesses from moving into the mainstream of commercial life.
Also, we must continue to improve the targeting of other areas of public expenditure, aimed at addressing the special needs of people from ethnic minorities. That is important, given the large sums of money being spent. Large sums of public money are available, but ill-directed good intentions can pour some of it down the drain. Anyone involved in inner city programmes has seen that happen occasionally. I am not saying that that happens under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, but we are studying targeting in that area and shall continue to do so. Under section 11, £129 million will be made available to local authorities in 1992–93. That is not small money in such an area. We have already made progress in


revising the criteria for section 11 grants so that work is targeted and expenditure gives value for money. I am studying future policy on the better use of that money.
We should find an opportunity at some time—I do not know when—to study the wording of section 11, which gets in the way of many things that people want. We all know that it is confined to local government staff and to the new Commonwealth. One cannot help Vietnamese minorities, for example. One day I hope to have the opportunity to do something about that.
Good progress has been made in that area and in many others, but I am sure that barriers remain to full opportunity for people from ethnic minorities and to a fully integrated society. The most obvious and obnoxious barrier is racial discrimination, and the Government remain committed to eliminating its evils. We demonstrate our commitment by support of the law, and shall continue to do so. Our race relations laws are the most comprehensive in Europe. I do not think that it is xenophobic to say that they are undoubtedly the best in the European Community. As a Government, we work closely with the Commission for Racial Equality in enforcing the law and support it in all its work.
We have done a great deal of work in combating racially targeted crime. Detailed guidance has been issued to the police and other agencies following the initiative of the inter-departmental racial attacks group. Police forces are urged to give priority to incidents of racially motivated crime. I believe that the big increase in the number of incidents reported to the police shows an increased confidence in the ability of the police to respond to those reports. Undoubtedly, we have to continue to attack such crime with vigour.
We must also make sure that the community consultation engaged in by the police, which they now perform statutorily, extends to proper consultation with all those groups that it is most difficult to get involved, in particular young people but also people from the ethnic minorities with whom consultation is most important to improve the quality of police work. As I hope that everybody knows, we have been working extremely hard in support of the police authorities to improve recruitment from ethnic minorities. We still have a considerable way to go, but in the past year or two in particular there has been considerable activity to support the recruitment of ethnic minorities. I am glad to say that there are now more than 1,500 officers from the ethnic minorities in place, and we shall take every action that we can to ensure an increase in the number of good men and women from the ethnic minorities who enter the police service.
I know that people are concerned about racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. A great deal of attention has been paid to the disproportionate number of black and ethnic minority people in prison, the disproportionate number who appear to he prosecuted rather than cautioned, and the disproportionately low numbers in place in the professions and in the administration of the courts. I believe that those statistics do not demonstrate racial bias in the system of administration of justice. Through most of the criminal justice system, there is a much higher proportion of people who are positively hostile to the idea of racial discrimination than there is among the general population.
There is no point in being complacent. I agree that many sensible people look at the statistics and are concerned that there appears to be discrimination. Therefore, we have done a lot of research. The figures that I could give to the House come out of work in which my Department has been involved, monitoring to ensure that we identify problem areas. This is an area in which I support, among other things, ethnic monitoring of the prison population and of the statistics of those cautioned and prosecuted, and then action to ensure that we do what is necessary.
We shall have more information. Only last year, section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to publish regular information concerning the avoidance of discrimination. Those involved in the administration of criminal justice are already under a duty not to discriminate. The publication of information by the Secretary of State is intended to help them to perform this duty effectively. I confirm that the first statistics under section 95 will be published before the end of this year.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I listened with interest to the Home Secretary's comments about the criminal justice system. If I understood him correctly, he said that he is aware of the figures that show that there is a disproportionate number of black people in prison, that they are more likely to have longer sentences and custodial sentences rather than fines, and so on. However, he said that, despite the evidence of the figures and the wonderful work done by the Home Office research department, he did not believe that those figures showed racial discrimination. If they do not demonstrate institutional racism, what do they demonstrate?

Mr. Clarke: They demonstrate a higher level of contact between ethnic minority people and the legal system. There is more than one side to that problem, which the leaders in the ethnic minority communities must address with the rest of us. I can think of no clear explanation for why the statistics show that a higher proportion of people from the ethnic minorities elect, of their own free will, to go to the Crown court for trial and that a higher proportion of people from the ethnic minorities plead not guilty when they get to court. All these factors are being analysed, and we shall have more information about them. It is noticeable, on those partial statistics, that simply coming to the conclusion that this is all racial discrimination is not enough. and that we have to address ourselves to what other constraints can be placed on a population whose behaviour, sometimes among its younger members, brings it into contact with the law.

Mr. Hargreaves: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the research done by his Department that pinpoints even more closely where, if there is one, the problem may lie in this respect? The statistics show that females from the ethnic minorities are not involved. Predominantly, the problem is with males. It is only fair to the lady Members of the House to say that this problem is mirrored not just here but by research that has been done by a number of us in the United States, Canada and elsewhere to identify that, if there is a problem, it is among males rather than females. It is to that that we must address ourselves.

Mr. Clarke: That is also true of crime in general. It is not exclusively a male preserve, but it is heavily a male activity.
I apologise for the length of time that I have taken, but I have disappointed more Members by refusing to give way to them than I have pleased by acceding to such a request. I have been drawn, by the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and by interventions, into debating a number of subjects that I had not planned to deal with, but that is a good feature of a debate rather than a bad one.
We have not had a debate on this subject for a long time and this debate should help us all to underline the fact that the political system is committed to a good system of race relations. We are committed to action, as well as just speeches, to reduce the amount of racial discrimination and to improve the opportunities for those from ethnic minorities.
We have a better record than almost any other equivalent country in the western world with a large ethnic minority population. Our political system is responding better to the pressures of this kind than, say, the political system in either France or Germany appears to be. There is no room for complacency. Action and attention to what needs to be done must be kept up. Government, society and the ethnic communities themselves must all take their share of the responsibility for working for positive, good community relations. I hope that our amendment and the debate have made it clear that the Government's commitment to racial opportunity and equal opportunity is beyond doubt and that we have a good record in taking positive steps to achieve that.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I was glad to hear that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) decided, in what is apparently not his final, but perhaps his penultimate, performance as deputy leader of the Labour party, to choose a subject that is known to be close to his heart, both for constituency reasons and for reasons of principle and of intellectual application, shown over the years, to defending the interests of the ethnic minorities. I am bound to say that I did not expect it to be a bipartisan debate, certainly not as the right hon. Gentleman opened it, and he did not disappoint my expectations on that front.
It is also a happy coincidence that the Home Secretary has been given an opportunity, so early in the lifetime of this Government, to show us the nature of the man when dealing with what is undoubtedly one of the most difficult and sensitive responsibilities that he will discharge as Home Secretary—relations with the ethnic minorities, the prospect for those who have suffered from discrimination and who are least favoured in too many cases because of their ethnic origin. I no more expected the Home Secretary to be partisan in his approach than I expected the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to be. It is a worthy aspiration for the House to approach these matters in a bipartisan way, for other countries that have not done so —the Home Secretary spoke, appropriately, of the experience of France and Germany—have found it extremely damaging to race relations.
The Home Secretary's predecessor in that great office of state set an example that I hope that he will not follow.

Most particularly, during the general election, he gave voice to views about ethnic minorities and immigration that were plainly designed to support the most atavistic impulses in this country and to encourage the belief that only one party would prevent a flood tide of immigrants of black and other colours sweeping across the country.
It was a discreditable feature of the general election and it cannot go unremarked in this debate, which follows so hard upon its heels. It was a discreditable fact that a number of newspapers with wide circulations played closely along with the then Home Secretary in that disgraceful campaign. It was disgraceful because of its intellectual dishonesty and because it completely misrepresented the views of the official Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. However, it was also disgraceful because it did nothing to still the anxieties—most of them misplaced—of those in areas where there is a sense that communities are being taken over by people of a different cultural background from that long-established in those communities.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) is not in the Chamber, so I feel constrained to rise to his defence. I have been checking my recollections with the Minister of State, Home Office and my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), and we cannot remember the outrageous remarks that my right hon. Friend was supposed to have made during the election. Before history is rewritten, it is my clear recollection that the Asylum Bill hardly featured in the election campaign from beginning to end, and nor did the issues of immigration and race relations.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid very close attention to what the then Home Secretary said during the election campaign. Let me quote the former Home Secretary. On 5 April, he spoke of the dramatic rise in the vote for the fascist Die Republikaner party in Germany. He said that it was due to one issue:
That issue was the flood of migrants and would-be asylum seekers whose continuing numbers have aroused public concern. I have warned for many months about this rising tide.
He also spoke of fascists marching in Europe and gave a terrible warning about similar matters. In the context of the headlines that were appearing in many of the newspapers with larger circulations, it is clear from the former Home Secretary's speech, made four days before the election, that he does not view such matters in the same way as, I suspect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would prefer. I believe that the new Home Secretary is more sensitive about those matters, and that he is a man of rather better taste than his predecessor. His defence of his right hon. Friend is in stark contrast to the stab in the back just delivered by the former Home Secretary to his former Cabinet colleagues on the issue of Maastricht. However, that is not a subject for this debate.
I am also glad that the Home Secretary reaffirmed that there is broad agreement in the House about the principle, at least, of how we should seek to govern a multiracial society. He focused his comments on ways and means. It is inevitable that there will be differences about the ways and means of ensuring that we do not create a society that


encourages or allows discrimination to take place. If we are able to minimise those differences, we will perform a great service.
I agree with the Home Secretary that the heart of the debate should be about employment. From the figures that he and his Department, in one of its incarnations, produced on employment, we can see what a stark disadvantage it appears to be to belong to an ethnic minority if one is seeking to get ahead. It is not a matter only of inner-city deprivation, although it is right to mention what is being done about that. Discrimination also applies to those people who have the qualifications, but who are not preferred for jobs for which they are suitable. The figures show that twice as many people from ethnic minorities who have attained higher education are unemployed as those from the ethnic majority. That difference requires the consideration of ways and means.
Employment opportunity is not necessarily a matter of public expenditure. If the Home Secretary rejects the contract-compliance suggestions put forward in a number of circles—not only by the official Opposition—it is incumbent upon him to say how he would hope to see changes come about. He spoke convincingly and sincerely about his wish to see important positions in society held by those from ethnic minorities. No doubt he had in mind appointments such as judges or members of quangos. Many of those appointments may be made by members of the Government, and even his Department has in its hand a substantial element of patronage. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will use it positively to achieve the ends he outlined to ensure that change takes place.
I was interested in what the Home Secretary said about the criminal justice system and his belief, repeated in his response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), that the figures do not suggest that racial discrimination exists within the system. I acknowledge that the requirement of the law, which he says he supports, as outlined in section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, is to produce statistical information which may help us to make up our minds on that matter. That requirement has not been on the statute book for very long and it would he difficult for any of us, in the present circumstances, to assert a contrary proposition to that of the Home Secretary. However, I hope that he will have an open mind and that he will not be too firm in his view that there is no evidence of racial discrimination within the criminal justice system.
Many people who have been involved in that system for many years and who have not had the benefit of the statistics that will he forthcoming from his Department feel that racial discrimination exists. There have been ugly incidents—they are well-known in some policing circles —that were clearly racial. I know that the picture is patchy and that some police forces have done a great deal to root out racially-motivated attacks. However, in some areas such attacks are too common, and the figures show that the number is increasing. It is for that reason that the Liberal Democrats have suggested that there should he a specially dedicated squad of policemen to tackle the problem in those areas where it is perceived to be a serious threat.
The monitoring to be undertaken by the Home Office will be highly important. I am glad that the production of such figures is to be a matter of law, but what the Home Secretary chooses to publish will be a matter for him. We could, therefore, have rather more or less informative figures, depending upon the way in which he approaches the matter. In the spirit of open government, which we have been promised by the Prime Minister, I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us as soon as possible, not necessarily the results of the monitoring, but exactly what will be monitored, so that we can evaluate, even now, whether the process is going along on the right lines.
There are some other matters that I wish to raise briefly in my short speech—it must be short because this is a short debate. There is serious concern about housing for ethnic minorities in some parts of the country. The homeless are disproportionately drawn from ethnic minority communities. In the wind-up speech, will the Minister of State tell us how he believes that that problem can best be tackled? 
I do not disagree with the Home Secretary's comments on education. I share his philosophical view, and that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, that there should be freedom of choice in education. Indeed, the issue is governed by the European Convention on Human Rights. While we can differ on what is desirable for this country, there is a broadly bipartisan view about that.
I should comment on the attack on my party made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he referred to Tower Hamlets. He knows my political history and is aware that 1 have never allowed party to stand in the way of judgment about the rights and wrongs of an issue, to the point at which I was driven to leave the Labour party, of which he is a member. So I am not embarrassed by the question he asked, although he thought that I might be. I am exceedingly unhappy about what happened in that case. That local authority suffered appalling pressures, imposed on it by the very policies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in respect of local government finance.

Mr. Hattersley: If I misjudged the hon. Gentleman's willingness to make that honourable statement, I hope that he will forgive me. I plead in mitigation the fact that since, on a local government results programme, the leader of his party refused to condemn what happened, I assumed that he would do the same.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am my own man. I am not in any way criticising what I have not heard. My party is seeking to incorporate into the law of the land the European Convention on Human Rights—a move which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has steadfastly resisted—and, now, a wider Bill of Rights which would specifically and explicitly protect ethnic minority citizens from discrimination by public authorities, including local authorities.
I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman retires from his current responsibilities, he will feel rather more supportive of those objectives, which are designed to eliminate practices by local authorities of which he disapproves. It is no good taking a holier-than-thou attitude to local authorities which are under massive pressure because of central Government finance policy without providing the means to remedy matters.
I hope that the Home Secretary will provide hon. Members with opportunities in Government time to


discuss issues relating to immigration. It is right that this debate should not focus on that subject, as we are likely to have a debate in the next six months on the question of asylum. I was interested to learn that the Home Secretary is looking not just at the urgency of the case for asylum seekers' claims being considered more expeditiously—despite a substantial drop in the number of asylum seekers in the first quarter of this year—but that there appears to be a backlog of about 60,000 claims in his Department. despite the increase in expenditure this year to about £10 million.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to review such matters as the primary-purpose rule. I do not necessarily expect him to come up with a different answer, but the fact that he is at least proposing to review it is pleasing. I hope that, in the process of that review, he will recognise the great advantage there would be in calling to his office not only those with statutory responsibilities for race relations—I am sure that he will do that in any case—but those with experience of race matters in their constituencies. They should include hon. Members with such experience in all parts of the House.
If we could come up with a policy for immigration which commanded respect and agreement across the Floor, that would prove an immensely valuable prize. It would take the issue out of future general elections, bearing in mind the ugly way in which it surfaced during the last election, and would strengthen the Government's stated objectives of bringing about greater harmony in such matters. Will the Home Secretary have cross-party discussions and treat the issue in an exceptional way, remembering that it is an exceptional problem? 
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider the whole question of imprisonment. The prison system is under immense pressure. There are many more black and ethnic minority inmates than there are proportionately from other communities. It is difficult to say why that should be, and perhaps the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 will shed some light on the matter. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not simply rely on the easy nostrum that people get into trouble because they are bad. There is much more to the problem. He should look again at the sentencing policy of the courts. The issue has baffled successive Secretaries of State. While it may not be an easy matter, he should come to terms with it. The ethnic minorities will greatly benefit if he can come up with some answers.
Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the problems in Germany, I commend to him the sentencing policies being pursued there by a Government who, in relation to sentencing, are not totally dissimilar in political complexion to Her Majesty's Government. There, substantial reductions in sentences do not appear to have led to an increase in offending or in recidivism. Such an exercise might repay study and, in the process, improve race relations.

Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House for the first time. In doing so, I confess that I am somewhat nervous lest I follow the fate of one of my predecessors, Benjamin Disraeli, a man whose literary talents I admire, indeed

envy, but whose maiden speech proved one of the disasters of parliamentary performance. A contemporary describing that event summed it up by saying that Disraeli
began with fluid assurance, speedily degenerating into ludicrous absurdity and being at last put down with inextinguishable shouts of laughter.
I have the honour to represent the constituency of Aylesbury. It stretches from the Hertfordshire border of Buckinghamshire near Aston Clinton, down through the Chiltern Hills and the edge of the Vale of Aylesbury to the town of Stokenchurch and the village of Ibstone, on either side of the M40 motorway.
We have in the constituency such great institutions as Chequers, Stoke Mandeville hospital and, perhaps dear to the hearts of many English men and women, our national home of rest for horses. About half the population of my constituency lives in Aylesbury town, formerly a small, rather quaint market town but now a fast-growing business, commercial and industrial centre, as well as the county town of Buckinghamshire. The remaining half of my constituents live in smaller towns such as Wendover, Princess Risborough and Great Missenden, as well as in many smaller villages and hamlets which I shall not name individually.
It is an awesome experience to follow a distinguished line of parliamentarians who have represented, not just in recent years but over the centuries, the boroughs of Aylesbury and Wendover and the county of Buckinghamshire. The most illustrious was John Hampden, whose statue stands to this day in Aylesbury marketplace and whose patriotism, championship of liberty and independence of spirit in the face of the Government of his day are still remembered and honoured by my constituents.
At the other end of the scale, perhaps the most notorious representative of Aylesbury was John Wilkes in the 18th century. His house stands nigh St. Mary's church in the centre of the town. He was an enthusiastic member of the Hell Fire club and was expelled from the House of Commons almost as many times as he was elected to it. His political and public 1career was summed up by Edward Gibbon, who said that Wilkes was
A thorough profligate in principle as in practice …His life stained with every vice and his conversation full of blasphemy and bawdy.
Recent examples may give a happier precedent on which to draw for my own hopes of representing my constituency.
Senior members of this House will remember the service of Sir Spencer Summers, the hon. Member for Aylesbury until 1970. It would be fair to refer in passing to my constituents in Prestwood and Great Missenden who were represented for a time by Sir Ian—now Lord—Gilmour and my constituents of Risborough and Stokenchurch, who still remember with great affection the time when they were represented by the late Sir John Hall.
I pay special tribute to my immediate predecessor, Sir Timothy Raison, who represented Aylesbury with great distinction and dedication from 1970 until the recent general election. Whether as a Minister or a Back Bencher, Tim Raison tried to put principle and his constituency first. As the candidate and now the Member of Parliament going around Aylesbury, I find it striking how men and women of all political persuasions and of none speak of Tim Raison with affection and great respect. If, in my time in the House, I can win for myself a fraction of the reputation that he earned over 20 years, 1 shall consider myself fortunate.
This debate is an apposite subject on which to make a maiden speech, partly because my immediate predecessor was greatly interested in, and concerned about, those important issues, but also because roughly 5 per cent. of my constituents come from the various ethnic minorities. Issues of race and community relations concern not only inner cities and great conurbations but many small and medium sized towns.
I am glad to say that, in general, race relations in Aylesbury are extremely good, due to two facts. First, the majority of our citizens genuinely recognise—perhaps as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) wishes to see more generally in this country —that the various ethnic minorities in our town have much to offer and contribute to our community. Secondly, that feeling is reciprocated by the fact that the minorities wish not to lock themselves away in little ghettos but rather, while cherishing their traditions and customs, to play an important and increasing part in the economic, cultural and commercial life of their town and country. That is a fruitful example for other areas to follow in seeking to create good race and community relations.
The principle of which I have spoken can be seen at work in the organisation in Aylesbury. Within the Aylesbury Council for Racial Equality, representatives of all the major political parties work hard together in support of a common aim. It can be seen when visiting our newly opened multicultural centre, built in the heart of Aylesbury and opened by Tim Raison earlier this year. The building acts both as a home for the ethnic minorities —where they can celebrate their traditions and festivals —and as a place that can act as a showcase where they can welcome representatives from the majority community in the town and explain to them why those traditions are important and why they help to enrich the lives of everybody living in Aylesbury.
As I wish to leave plenty of time for others to contribute to the debate, I shall simply touch on two subjects mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. They are important if we are to secure good race relations in the future. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned the first of those two subjects—racial attacks. We have relatively few such problems in Aylesbury, but last year 1 was made aware of the shock and fear caused by what may seem a relatively minor crime—acts of criminal damage committed against Aylesbury mosque, instigated and encouraged by members of the self-styled British National party. No hon. Member would wish to excuse or explain such action. I discovered at first hand what even the breaking of a window and daubing graffiti meant in terms of that minority community's fear. Their status and acceptance as citizens of Aylesbury was under threat. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to press the police constantly to ensure that they give adequate priority to the detection of offenders who perpetrate racial attacks. Although I know that power over court sentences is not in his hands, I hope that he will consult my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and use the opportunity of meetings with the magistracy to ask that deterrents and exemplary sentences be imposed when such culprits are brought to trial and convicted.
My second point concerns the teaching of English in schools. No child or adult who lacks a firm grasp of the

English language. both written and spoken, will be able to grasp the opportunities that we are trying to make available to them. I welcomed what my right hon. and learned Friend had to say today about the greater targeting of section 11 grants and the review that is under way to see whether the scope of those grants and how they are made available can be improved. However, to my knowledge, a review of section 11 grants has been under way in the Home Office for at least three years. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask his diligent officials to treat that subject with the urgency and importance that it deserves? All hon. Members should consider themselves fortunate that, at least so far, this country has not experienced the lamentable upsurge of racist and neo-fascist sentiment that is now disfiguring political life in many western European countries. It is incumbent on all of us, whatever our party, to ensure that such sentiments, such extreme philosophies and policies, are never accorded any respect or given the opportunity to gain political support in Britain.
Racial problems are difficult to resolve. The challenges are not for the Government alone, but for voluntary societies and individuals—the mainstay of British cultural and social life. The prize that we should seek to gain is great. I wish to help, as far as I am able, to build a society in which any man or woman, whatever his or her colour, racial origin or ethnic background can feel at home in the United Kingdom and has a willing affection and loyalty to the institutions, history and traditions of this nation. I also wish them to feel that their contribution to our mainstream national life is valued and welcomed by others with different traditions.
I know that it is not within the power of any Government to attain such a goal overnight, but I believe that the policies that my right hon. and learned Friend outlined this afternoon will take us closer to that goal. In implementing them, he will have my wholehearted and enthusiastic support.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his excellent maiden speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) made some good comments—she said that she could tell that the hon. Gentleman was new to the House. I hope that he continues to make such speeches.
I welcome the debate and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on raising the subject. It is long overdue for discussion and is raised in the Chamber once in a blue moon. It is a subject which the Opposition have to put on the agenda, as the Government will not. The Government have no policy on racial discrimination. To correct myself, the Government have one policy: they believe that if they control immigration, everything else will work out. They think that by keeping the numbers down they will ensure that there is not too much trouble in the country. I do not agree, and I believe that the Government are storing up trouble for the future.
The Government's policy appeases racists, but, unfortunately, racists are only appeased for a short period, and are now on the move. Unemployment has caused more racial attacks on black and minority ethnic groups


than any other issue. Racists use unemployment and other such excuses. I urge the Government to come up with positive policies to deal with the problem.
The Government are also storing up resentment among black people due to the treatment that those people receive. Visitors who come to this country from places like Jamaica are treated almost like scum; they are strip searched and abused. We heard today about the case of a black person from America whose experiences here left a lot to be desired.

Mr. Vaz: Does not my hon. Friend think that now is the time for the Government to abolish the rules which they introduced in 1989 and which they term as guidelines for Members of Parliament when making representations on behalf of visitors to this country? I know that he and his constituency officer deal with many cases in which they have to bargain with junior immigration officers at Heathrow and Gatwick so that constituents' friends who want to make visits or even attend funerals may enter. Genuine cases are rejected and people who have spent much money travelling halfway across the world to visit friends and relatives in this country are sent back, even though their cases are genuine.

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is right. When I entered Parliament in 1987, as he did, Members of Parliament were able to put a stop to the removal of visitors from this country. The Government moved quickly to outlaw that privilege for Members of Parliament who, as a result. were forced into bargaining with low-level immigration officers to try to get visitors a stay of one or two days while the Members of Parliament sought to contact the Minister responsible. That is most unsatisfactory, and I agree that the Government should abolish that requirement as soon as possible.
Much resentment is being built up among black people due to the treatment of visitors. People are worried that a white British man can go to the Philippines, buy a bride and return to this country without any problem, while a black person—man or woman—has great difficulty entering the country. One reason for that involves the questions asked of people trying to bring spouses into the country.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that many of my white constituents who have left the country, not to buy a bride in the Philippines or Thailand, but to contract genuine marriages, have had to wait 18 months to two years and have even produced children, before being allowed to enter this country. While my hon. Friend has a strong argument, it is not true to say that white people can walk in and out of this country with brides as they choose. The Government are much too discriminatory, especially when non-white brides are being brought in.

Mr. Grant: 1, too, have no wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend, but I have never had to deal with such a case, and I look forward to the day when one comes before me. I have known of many cases affecting black people, but if the Government are also stopping white people from bringing brides or husbands over here, that is also to be deplored.
I am concerned that a number of key issues are causing difficulties for people in black and minority ethnic communities. One such issue is unemployment, which is at

its highest in the inner cities where most blacks live. I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say today that figures are collected in unemployment exchanges on the basis of ethnicity. I have never been able to obtain any figures on the ethnic breakdown of unemployment. However, I have conducted surveys in my constituency, and I know that 60 per cent. of young black people in Tottenham are unemployed and are unlikely to gain employment in the next year or so. Some 300 school leavers who left schools in my constituency last year have been unable to obtain a place on any Government training scheme.
In my constituency, 11,238 people were unemployed in April, a rise of 23.3 per cent. according to Government calculations. That is an increase of 24 per cent. over the past 12 months and of 70 per cent. over the past two years. Tottenham jobcentre has 116 vacancies, which means that 100 people are chasing every job. According to the unemployment unit index, which is much more accurate than Government figures, 15,990 people are unemployed. That is 33.2 per cent. of Tottenham's working population. There has been an increase of 120 per cent. in long-term unemployment in the past two years, but long-term youth unemployment has risen by some 500 per cent. over the same period. Unemployment and what the Government do about it are matters of grave concern to my constituents.
Despite the extremely high unemployment in my constituency, which has the highest unemployment in London and the fourth highest in the country, Haringey council has decided to cut the youth service by 70 per cent. That service tries to ensure that young people have some place to go. There are now only two main youth centres in Tottenham, and the whole of north and south Tottenham are not covered by the service at all. There are no detached youth worker teams and only one detached youth worker in the whole borough. As a result, young people have nowhere to go and concentrate in clusters in the shopping centres. Many young people spend the whole day in betting shops, and fights are taking place between groups of young people on Duckett's common. The groups consist of youths of a particular ethnic background. Asian young people fight Turkish Cypriots, with African and Caribbean youths and so on. That is happening because there is no provision for young people.
Haringey council, like other local authorities, has been threatened with poll-tax capping. Clearly, the Government's refusal properly to fund local authorities in the past few years must be taken into account. However, the local authority is not playing its full part in providing for young people, especially those from black and minority ethnic communities.

Ms. Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, traditionally, the health service has been a large employer of black people and people from ethnic communities, especially in the big cities? Since 1945, black nurses have in some ways been the unsung heroines in the building of the British health service. The drive towards privatisation and trust hospitals means that the job security and job status of many black workers, and especially women, are seriously threatened. If the Government are serious about black employment and about helping ethnic groups, they should look to their own role and that of the health authorities as employers and to the employment role of the trusts.

Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. In my area, many black auxiliary nurses and porters have recently been dismissed for various reasons, one of which is that some of the services have been privatised. My hon. Friend is right in what she says about cuts in the health service.
Because there is no proper youth provision in my constituency, youths are turning to drug trafficking. Youth workers tell me that crack cocaine is on the increase because of the money that young people can make from trafficking. They engage in that because there is no alternative employment. The youth workers also tell me that there is tension on the streets and that youths are planning a Los Angeles-style riot or disturbance in my area. They say that unless something is done, especially during the summer months, we can expect trouble. I believe the youth workers. We should take action and I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to make money available to ensure that young people are off the streets and doing something positive during the summer.
There are also difficulties in education and training. The North London tech has not been responding to applications from the Turkish youth association and the Asian action group in my constituency and no reasons have been given for non-acceptance. One youth worker told me that the youth are Thatcher's children. They are under pressure to drive fast cars and, as a consequence, they are forced to live above their means. As a result, they are driven into the hands of the drug pushers. I hope that we can do something to help young people, especially those in inner cities and those from black minority and ethnic groups.
Much attention has been focused on the Maastricht treaty, but the Single European Act, which comes into force on 1 January, will create problems for people from black and ethnic minority communities. The Act is supposed to allow free movement of people, but we know that, because of racism, people are not being allowed to move freely around Europe. They are being stopped on the borders and on the streets of European cities and asked to produce documents, purely on the basis of the colour of their skin. There is no other reason whatever.
We must look seriously at the way in which racism and fascism have risen in Europe. For example, in Belgium, where there is little or no race legislation, blacks can be excluded from pubs. They cannot live in certain areas in Brussels and people can discriminate against them in a variety of ways. Racial attacks are increasing. When people hear about attacks on refugees and asylum seekers they say that all such people are being attacked in western Europe. But the ones who are being injured and killed are the black ones. That is the difference. A Yugoslav or a Czech can melt into the population in a European country and, unless he is questioned. he can get away with it. However, because of the visibility of colour, racists and fascists can go on a spree and it does not matter whether the victim is a citizen, a migrant or a refugee.
I went to a recent conference in Berlin called by the Immigrants Political Forum in Germany and some of the horror stories told there must be repeated. There were people there from Denmark, Spain and Germany. The Danish representative said that 20 refugee centres had been burnt down in Sweden and that a sniper operating in Denmark is shooting at black people. Recently 15 people have been shot and one has been killed, but there has been

no attempt by the police to ensure that people are caught and tried. Bombs have been set off in Copenhagen and in Norway.
Police violence against migrants in Paris is enormous. Gangs of white youths roam the streets looking for black people and coloured people generally to attack. In working-class areas, people with black neighbours were told to shoot them if they acted in any way which their white neighbours considered anti-social.
Spain is the nearest European country to Africa and Africans are being shot as they cross the sea to that country. Bodies riddled with bullets have been washed up on Spain's beaches and the outlook for those who have been admitted as genuine asylum seekers and refugees is grim. No Government provision is made for them, although they are legal asylum seekers. People have to sleep in the park and are often moved on. They have no housing, no money and have to fend for themselves.
It is ironic that in July this year black athletes will be shaking the hand of the President of Spain when they receive their gold medals, while that same person is responsible for the depredations facing black citizens and black asylum-seekers in that country. Black athletes should make some sort of protest, perhaps by boycotting the opening or closing ceremony, to let people know that they disagree with the way in which black people are being treated in Spain. I shall be approaching a number of people asking that some sort of protest be lodged along those lines.
In Portugal, people are working illegally on building sites. Employers are using such people, who are often called clandestines, because they are cheap labour. Many of them are killed and injured because employers do not have to worry about safety measures. Such issues are important and must be looked at.
We were told by the Germans of a situation in a town in Germany called Hoyerswerda. In September last year about 250 migrants were set upon, originally by skinheads, but eventually by almost the entire town. The skinheads attacked one of the refugee hostels and the people had to run up to the roof. They stayed there for three days and they had only the food that they could take with them. One of those involved said:
We all, Mozambicans and Vietnamese ran into the house and took refuge in the upper floors. The Skins were joy-dancing, uncorking bottles of brandy or gin, drinking shouting 'Foreigners out', 'Germany for Germans' … Later on more and more bystanders began arriving on the premises, so that at the end it was all clogged up with people. After 1.5 hours they started pelting our windows with stones. Whenever one of them would hit their target the spectators-bystanders would clap their hands. This meant for us 'Right on, you are dead right now, well done'. And the policemen, 12 of them who were there—did not do anything to arrest the people concerned.
The person went on:
On the following day it all started again at 3 pm. This time there were also some schoolchildren among the mob, not only skinheads. Children came accompanied by their parents. The parents gave their children stones to throw them at our window panes. As the glasses broke into pieces they began clapping their hands, children and parents. There were only a very few parents, perhaps only four families, who dragged their children out of the riot with the subsequent scolding.
Those involved went on to say that they were bussed into another small town where they were also attacked. The position in Europe must be deplored and the Government must do something about it.
From 1 July the Government will hold the presidency of the European Community. Some time ago I asked the Foreign Secretary whether the Government would ensure that race equality legislation was brought into the treaty of Rome and discussed within the European Commission. He said that there was no competence to deal with race equality in the treaty of Rome.
Now that Maastricht seems to have been done away with—I welcome that—and I heard the Prime Minister talking about intergovernmental co-operation and taking a different road, there is no impediment to him raising this issue with other Governments. We need racial equality legislation throughout Europe so that those who travel through or visit Europe, whether on business or whatever, can do so without discrimination and without the stigma attached to being a person of colour.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will talk about that aspect, because this is a unique opportunity for Britain to act. The Government always claim that we are at the top of race equality legislation. Let us do something about it and ensure that the legislation that we claim is so great is duplicated throughout Europe.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is talking about race relations legislation that operates in Great Britain. I am sure that he is aware that that legislation does not apply to all United Kingdom citizens. Does he agree that that is an omission and that the human rights of even very small minorities should be protected? Does he support the extension of race relations legislation to all parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Grant: I am being treated kindly this evening. I have agreed with the points of all those who have intervened. The area represented by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) certainly has a clear need for such legislation. As a matter of fact, Haringey council accepted that Irish people were also a minority ethnic group in Britain and that view has played a part in the local legislation that we have passed. I agree that the legislation should be extended throughout Britain.
Over the past few months we have seen the rise of political racism. A number of parties of the right have come forward. There is the Republikaner party in Germany with its leader Schöenhuber and there is the MS1 in Italy. There is the Vlams Blok party in Belgium, which is opposed not only to foreigners but to French being spoken. It wants Flemish to be the language spoken in Belgium. There is opposition in Belgium and young people have formed a counter organisation which they call the Blokbusters. It hopes to start an arm of that organisation in Britain and I shall support it. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will also be able to support it if they are called upon to do so. Everyone knows how the obnoxious Front Nationale party in France has grown. Also, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, the British National party has been responsible for the death of Rolan Adams. It has an obnoxious headquarters in the Bexley area and we hope that the police, the Home Office and so on will be able to ensure that that racist organisation and its headquarters is closed down. There have been severe attacks in Britain. The political thrust behind the racist attacks must be tackled and I hope that the Government are prepared to do that.
A number of things need to be done. First, the Race Relations Act 1976 is long overdue for renewal. Certain

sections of the Act need beefing up and I hope that the Minister will tell us what he intends to do about that. The Commission for Racial Equality has been underfunded for many years. Not everyone supports the CRE in what it does, but in its ability to tackle the law and set legal precedents it is second to none. It has been prevented from taking up all the cases that it would like to because of a lack of funds. If the Government are keen to act, they must ensure that the CRE is adequately funded so that it can tackle its important job.
I agree with what has been said about the criminal justice system, but there are ways in which we can tackle that. The issue of all-white juries is being tackled in America by people of colour and it is beginning to be pushed in Britain. All-white juries sitting in judgment on people of colour must be stopped. I hope that the Government will consider that.
The issue of positive action needs to be raised once again. Since the Los Angeles riots, academics and others have decried positive action and have said, "That is where positive action gets you." In the past five or six years, positive action programmes in the United States have been discontinued by Presidents Reagan and Bush. The United States supreme court outlawed set-asides and other programmes that allowed black people and black businesses to win Government contracts. Poverty programmes and positive-action programmes were cut, but when the conflagration occurred people said, "The positive action programmes are no good." Those programmes were not given a fair run. The points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook made about contract compliance and a number of other matters should be considered. The Government must put their money where their mouth is.
I want to give some advice to the new Secretary of State.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Where is he? He should be here.

Mr. Grant: He should be here, but he can read Hansard tomorrow. I give him this advice. He has a reputation for being off the cuff and casual and for making flippant remarks. This is not the subject for him to practise those skills or non-skills, because people are extremely sensitive about it. He strayed into areas that he did not know much about. I advise him to be extremely cautious about what he says on these issues if he wants to keep his job for a long time.
We need money in certain areas. The Secretary of State said that £4 billion had been spent on inner-city schemes and tried to give the impression that the money had reached black people and minorities suffering in inner-city areas. None of that money reached black people and minority groups in my area. We should like to know who benefited from that £4 billion, if it was spent.
My constituents from black and minority ethnic communities need policies to reduce unemployment and to combat poor training. We need proper jobs for young people. Further and higher education provision must ensure that our young people have education opportunities. Meetings were held with young people after the Broadwater farm disturbances in 1985. Councillors said, "We have some nice apprenticeships for you. You can be a carpenter, an electrician or a nurse." The youths said, "We are not interested." One of them said, "I want to be a test pilot." Another said, "I want to be a brain surgeon."


It was automatically assumed that because of their colour they should be limited to particular jobs. That idea must disappear from our career services, our training places and from Government.
We hope that we are entering a new era. The Prime Minister talks about a classless society.

Mr. Vaz: He lived in Brixton.

Mr. Grant: He lived in Brixton. He grew up in a house that had many races and I appreciate that his heart may be in the right place, but he needs the advice and support of Ministers and civil servants to ensure that these issues, some of which I have raised today, are given a proper hearing, that we set an example for the rest of Europe and that racism is no more in our society.

Mr. Jim Lester: Whenever the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) speaks as the authentic voice of many in the ethnic minorities, he should be listened to with great care. However, I wish that his speech had been shorter, as it has not left much time for anybody else.
The hon. Member for Tottenham mentioned £4 billion being spent on inner cities. I remember contract money being spent in Nottingham, where my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I come from, and particularly in the Radford area. Much time and trouble was spent on ensuring special provision for employing local people, even to the extent that contracts were switched from the lowest tender so that the local community felt that the money was spent for its benefit.
I should like to start where my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary finished and where my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) started and finished. All of us are committed to a multi-ethnic community and freedom before the law. We shall accept nothing less.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury on his speech. I am sure that he will not be diverted from the principles that he expressed. He succeeds an honourable friend of mine, Tim Raison, with whom I worked closely in debates such as these and on refugees. I appreciated what my hon. Friend said about his predecessor and the speech that he made.
I support what the hon. Member for Tottenham said about the rights of British citizens in Europe. British citizenship is a great and cherished right, and it has considerable historical freedoms. It should protect anyone who has it. I am concerned that when some of my constituents take a holiday abroad, particularly in the European Community, they are not treated as well as one would expect a British citizen to be treated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will ensure that European Ministers who are responsible for the police and for the other services with which British citizens come into contact understand that, once citizenship has been established, British citizens who were originally from an ethnic minority or who are second generation should be treated the same. I support what the hon. Member for Tottenham said, because we want to ensure that being a British citizen means something throughout the European Community and wherever a British citizen travels.
I understand the difficulties of those who must interview entrants who are seeking to enter this country for family reasons. In my experience, different standards apply. I am aware of many cases where people made what I regarded as a perfectly normal request for a relative to attend, for instance, a wedding. Constituents of mine have even held the weddings of their two children at the same time to minimise the problems of families attending. I experienced considerable difficulty in getting their relatives here. I felt that I had to apologise to my constituent because I could not justify the reason why only one member of the family—an older brother—was turned down.
In such cases, I suggest—and I try to do this in the House and through the system—that one should carefully consider the person who issued the invitation. My constituents who have offered invitations are well-substantiated citizens who are a credit to, and offer much to, their local communities and are in work. They have no reason to do anything other than organise a family reunion within the law. When such invitations are sent, I often arrange for a letter to accompany it saying that the person who has issued it is a long-standing constituent of mine. Such letters could be used during the interviews in some countries when people apply for visas.
Finally, I wish to deal with the vexed question of the attitude of the police. When my eldest son was just 18, he was a fairly hairy specimen of his generation. He had a mass of hair, wore trendy clothes and necklaces. He is also a decent, fine man—he is now nearly 40, but I am talking about when he was 18. Being a generous and liberal father, I used to let him use my car, a reasonably expensive and new Rover 2000 TC. He was convinced that the police had it in for him because of the number of times he was stopped or approached as he went to get into the car. I remember trying to talk it through with him and with the police.
The principal point that emerged was that if the police were courteous in asking why he was in my car or about to get into my car, there could be little objection because, obviously, young people who looked like my son did at the time had no particular reason to be driving such a car on their own merit. If the police were courteous and if my son was able to be courteous in response, it was perfectly respectable. But if they were ill mannered, assumed that he had stolen the car and treated him in an unacceptable way, it was also unacceptable to me. That example should be borne in mind by the police forces when they approach people from the ethnic minorities.
The most useful way in which we can see the values that we have all expressed come about is to observe the way in which—certainly in the city of Nottingham and the surrounding area—the ethnic communities, which I remember first arrived in 1956, have been integrated into our society. However, we also want them to be integrated especially in the police force. I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said about the numbers now in the force, but we want more in the magistracy and as barristers and judges and at all levels of our legal system. In that way we can have the assurance that we all seek that to be a British citizen and to live in this country is a special privilege. It should exercise all of us to ensure that that privilege is given to all, regardless of race, colour or creed.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: I understand that Disraeli was once asked to determine the difference between a calamity and a disaster. I think he said that if Gladstone fell into the Thames it would be a calamity and that if someone pulled him out it would be a disaster. As a successor to Gladstone, I add my congratulations to Mr. Disraeli's successor, and I agree especially with his drawing attention to racial attacks in his constituency. He highlighted the connection between such attacks and the British National party.
My constituency borders on Bexley, which is the home of the British National party. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) referred to Rolan Adams who would have become one of my constituents had he not been brutally murdered in a racist attack a few hundred yards from my home and not too far from the headquarters of the British National party.
In a debate on the position of black people in British society, it is right to draw attention in a predominantly white House to the daily experience of many black citizens who are subject to harassment, abuse and often violent attacks. I want to raise the connection that I see between the increase in racial attacks in my area and the presence of the British National party. Earlier this year, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the Prime Minister said that literature had been seized from its headquarters and referred to the Crown prosecution service. It is time to ask what was the result of the investigation into the literature that was seized. There is no doubt in my mind that literature emanating from the British National party headquarters in Welling is racially inflammatory and is an incitement to racial hatred. We have a right to demand to be told when the Attorney-General will take action against it.
I also want to mention legislation to the new Home Secretary in relation to provocative marches which incite racial hatred in sensitive areas. When the British National party proposed to march through Woolwich and Thamesmead recently, questions were asked by the local council and local churches, community groups and black organisations who feared the consequences of that march. The local police also wanted the march to be halted, but, for that to be done, it would have been necessary for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to tell the Home Secretary that, despite all the resources at the disposal of the Metropolitan police, he could not cope with the civil disorder that might arise from the march. Clearly, it would have been very difficult for the commissioner to say that. He should have been able to tell the Home Secretary that he feared the effects on local community relations if the march went ahead and that, on that basis, the Home Secretary should ban it. I hope that the new Home Secretary will review the ways in which such provocative, racist marches can be stopped.
Other hon. Members have mentioned a speech made during the election by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). From what was said to me on the doorstep after that speech had been made, it is clear that it incited racism and inflamed feelings in my constituency. The former deputy Prime Minister, Lord Whitelaw, was quick to dissociate himself from a Tory Member in

Scotland. I regret only that the Prime Minister did not distance himself from the speech made by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley.
When speaking to an annual meeting of a racial equality council, my predecessor referred to two types of racism—the direct racism of physical attacks and abuse and direct discrimination and what he described as the "kid glove" racism of the immigration Acts. I disagree with him because there is nothing "kid glove" about the way in which immigration rules have separated families and stopped visitors attending marriages and funerals. Hon. Members of all parties have made a similar point.
Although I disagree profoundly with the Immigration Act 1971, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I am sure that he had no intention of its being used to stop genuine visitors coming to this country to see friends and relatives or to attend weddings and funerals.
The Home Secretary mentioned the issue of equality in the provision of services. He appeared to suggest that there was a fault in the Opposition's motion which suggested that black people do not have equality of access to services. Every survey that has ever been carried out, whether of Government services, local authority services or of health services, shows that black people and other ethnic minorities do not have equal access, whether because of the inappropriateness of the service, the way in which it is delivered or because of direct discrimination. I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise that fact and that he will support measures to deal with it.
Other hon. Members have mentioned penal services and the criminal justice system. There is ample evidence to show that black people are disadvantaged by the way in which the system operates. I am sorry that some of the Home Secretary's remarks seemed almost to suggest the criminalisation of young black people. I hope that he will make an effort later to distance himself from such a suggestion. He seemed to suggest that one problem was that so many black young people declared themselves not guilty and wanted to go to the Crown court Rather than suggesting that that is perverse, he should consider an alternative suggestion—that many more young black people who are innocent get picked up and charged because of the way in which the system operates.
Many statistics relating to the criminal justice system have been mentioned. I believe that the mental health services are also an area in which there appears to be clear evidence of the operation of institutional racism. Why is it, for example, that black people are four times as likely as white people to reach a mental hospital through the involvement of the police, and twice as likely to have been sent to hospital from prison? Why are they twice as likely to be detained in hospital under mental health legislation? Why are psychotic black patients twice as likely as white patients, including white immigrants, to be detained involuntarily in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1984? There is adequate evidence to show that there is discrimination both in the diagnosis and treatment of black people within the mental health services. That area is ripe for a Government inquiry.
Much has been said about the need for ethnic monitoring in employment. I welcome Ministers' support for ethnic monitoring as an essential tool in employment practice to deliver equal opportunities. Regrettably, Ministers stop short of the necessary legislation to bring that about. Government Departments and local


authorities are prevented, for example, from using their commercial power through contract compliance to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in employment among those who tender for contracts for local authority services.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the fact that anti-discrimination legislation on race did not extend to all parts of the United Kingdom. However, there is legislation in Northern Ireland which deals with religious discrimination. I do not suggest that that legislation should be extended to Great Britain, although I believe that we may draw some positive lessons from certain elements of the fair employment legislation. In the White Paper "Fair Employment in Northern Ireland", which was published in 1988, the Government say:
The legislative measures detailed in this White Paper are strong; they are also fair. They require best employment equality practice from employers, including compulsory monitoring and affirmative action measures where necessary; they provide for strengthened enforcement powers through the criminal and the civil law; and they use the Government's economic strength to support good practice.
If best employment equality practice is right in Northern Ireland, why should we have second-best employment equality practice in the rest of the United Kingdom? 
I hope, therefore, that in considering the second comprehensive review of the Race Relations Act 1976 which has been carried out by the Commission for Racial Equality—there was no formal response to the first review—the new Home Secretary will respond formally and positively. I hope that he will take a step along the road to providing equal access and equal opportunity to all our citizens.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea): I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) and especially to his point about marches. He spoke about the balance needed between the right to march and the right not to have one's civil rights interfered with by such marches. I hope that he will return to that matter.
I also listened carefully to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), who said that everyone agreed with him. I certainly agreed with one particular point. He referred to the Irish dimension and I join him, if I heard him aright, in suggesting that Home Office Ministers might consider the discrimination—if one calls it that—of the Irish being excluded from section 11 grants. The hon. Gentleman also gave some horrendous examples of what is happening in Europe and he was right to do so, even if it went a little beyond the terms of the motion. I am sure that we need to consider those problems as we take on the presidency in Europe.
As the hon. Gentleman spoke, it struck me that the more I listened to him, the more I realised how fortunate we are not to have such circumstances in this country. The more one thinks about that, the more one realises that the reason why we do not have such circumstances is that we have a firm view of the kind expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in his excellent maiden speech. He proved himself to be a true inheritor of Disraeli's seat and of Disraeli's philosophy on these

matters. I hope that we shall hear him putting that view on many occasions. Such views are the surest way in which we shall have good race relations in this country.
I could not be here without the support of many people of many ethnic and racial origins. Some 25 per cent. of my constituents come from other parts of the world, especially from black countries, whether in Africa or in the Caribbean, and from the Asian communities. I am scarcely conscious nowadays of the colour of my constituents. We have become far more colour blind. They are people, they are constituents, they have problems and they show me the opportunities they have seized. I have worked happily with them. I hope that increasingly we shall not need debates such as this, as people from different backgrounds or from different parts of the world who have come to live here feel themselves part of our United Kingdom.
I remember that great Conservative candidate Lurleen Champagne saying—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to hear Opposition cheers. Her great statement was that she was black, she was British, she was Conservative—and she was proud of all three. We can be proud of that as well.

Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bowis: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must hasten through my speech.
The debate has raised a number of issues, including the central issue of jobs. I welcome what has been said about jobs, and I welcome what the Government are doing about job opportunities and the way in which they seek to end any discrimination that there may be. The solution is linked with education and training, and with providing opportunities there.
We must also ensure that there are opportunities in appointments. I want to see more role models from different communities among our police and our magistrates so that people see the opportunities and feel that those in authority are as much their people as anybody's.
We need to consider the whole question of tolerance in our society, and religious tolerance is part of that. We can find ways in which to make religious practice more possible. It is a two-way movement. I have done what I can to ensure, for example, that my Muslim community has adequate burial grounds of the type needed for its religious practice. I am entitled to ask those Muslims to ensure that the Muslim community responds, not least in those Muslim countries where religious tolerance is not the norm. In that way, we can get a better understanding round the world.
I have touched on Muslim issues and there are a number that we should study carefully. Early in the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred to voluntary-aided schools. He is right in suggesting that there is no discrimination in the way in which the Muslim communities have been unable to obtain voluntary-aided schools to date. However, there are obstacles which I should like to see removed. If one obstacle is the definition of "available places", we must try to find a better way to define that term. The same is true of single-sex schools. I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) acknowledge that the Labour party's policy on single-sex schools may be changing so that there could be the opportunity for such schools, and for hospitals for women.
One of the most important issues, from the Muslim point of view, is the need to consider the antidiscrimination law. Following the 1991 Sheffield judgment, it is felt that the law should be clarified and possibly amended. The Muslim community feel that they have been excluded from protection measures that apply to Christians, Jews, Sikhs and others.
Let me also ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to discuss with his colleagues ways in which we can help people in this country when disasters occur elsewhere in the world. When a natural disaster took place in Bangladesh, involving floods, death and destruction, many people in this country were affected because they were related to the victims. In such cases, relatives often do not know what is happening. I believe that we could help them by providing a more efficient source of information, and by recognising the need for counselling, especially bereavement counselling.
I hope that the policy so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—and, earlier, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary— will continue. It is a "one-nation" policy. Many peoples have come to this nation: Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Romans, Normans, Huguenots and Jews; more recently, Jamaicans, Bengalis and Ghanaians, among others; and, more recently still, the Somalis and Ethiopians who have come to my constituency. I hope that we can continue to prove to the world that we can provide a one-nation society that sets an example to the rest of the world, demonstrating how people from different backgrounds can preserve their own identity while nevertheless integrating in a happy and forward-looking society.

Mr. Alistair Darling: This has been a short debate—perhaps too short. We have heard only one maiden speech, from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I enjoyed the tour of his constituency that he provided: in common with many other Scottish Members, I have flown over it often enough, waiting to land at Heathrow, and I was interested to learn about what goes on beneath the clouds. I agreed with what the hon. Gentleman said about racial attacks, too. He will be pleased to learn that, judging by the Minister's expression— which, of course, he could not see at the time —his criticism of the Home Office delays in dealing with the section 11 review struck home.
The Tory attitude to this issue is interesting. The Government amendment, and the Home Secretary's speech, sit very ill with what the Tory party does in practice—especially before general elections. Before the election, the Asylum Bill was said to be desperately needed. Where is it now? Immediately before the election, the former Home Secretary made what I can only describe as a very grubby speech in which he attempted to equate immigration with proportional representation. He spoke of "a pact with the devil". He must feel very hard done by, finding himself on the Back Benches again, although many Conservative Members owe their presence in the House to what he said before the election. I am sorry to note that not one of the signatories to the Government amendment has ever seen fit to repudiate what he—and, indeed, other Conservative Members—said then.
Racism and fascism are, of course, completely independent of the electoral system. The riots in Los

Angeles, for example, took place in a town where—as far as I am aware—everyone is elected under the first-past-the-post system. Racism and fascism are on the increase in Europe because the ingredients on which they feed are present: unemployment, poor housing and poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) pointed out, such elements have little to do with immigration controls, which are entirely independent of those who feed on people's fears and turn understandable concern into prejudice by pandering to the worst of those fears. That is happening all over Europe.
Moreover, more and more people throughout Europe are becoming disillusioned with their Governments, because those Governments are not tackling the problems that they are experiencing. They feel that Governments do not care for them, and that they have no chance of bettering their position. That sense of injustice, frustration and powerlessness is not helped by such remarks as that made by the Home Secretary, who said, when discussing criminal justice in this country, that the statistics did not show racial bias. They certainly seem to show something. We can all see that black and Asian defendants are treated differently from white defendants, and I feel that the Home Secretary owes it to the House and to our citizens to pay attention to the injustices in our criminal system rather than dismissing them as a statistical aberration.
The Government know that there are problems, and they ignore those problems at their peril. Must we really wait for unrest before anything is done? Cannot the Government realise that, if the problems are not tackled as a matter of urgency, we shall experience difficulties that we have not experienced for years?
The Government seem to dismiss the question of contract compliance. The Prime Minister says that he wants to live in a classless society—a society that is at ease with itself. Surely, if that is true, the Government should examine the imbalances in employment law. Companies operating in areas where there is a mixed population are employing a preponderance of one part of that population —and it is not just a question of ethnic monitoring. It is sometimes helpful to examine a company's total work force, and we find all too often that ethnic minorities are doing the unskilled jobs at the lower end of the employment scale. There are not all that many managing directors from the ethnic minorities.
The Government seem to have accepted that something must be done about the gender imbalance, but they are apparently not prepared to take the same positive action to deal with the ethnic imbalance. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), they have tackled the problem in Northern Ireland, but they do not seem to be willing to do the same for race relations in mainland Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham made an important point. He said that we must not ignore the influence of local authority funding: in many instances, local authorities are taking the lead in trying to redress imbalances in employment, but time and again cuts and capping deprive them of funds to tackle the problems.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the Commission for Racial Equality and its proposals for the overhaul of the Race Relations Act 1976. The Act is in need of overhaul, and it is no great secret that the CRE held off from making proposals during the premiership of Lady Thatcher—as she now is—because it suspected that the Government would take the opportunity to undermine the


Act. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will tell us the Government's responses to the CRE's constructive proposals—in particular, its proposals to increase its power to investigate discrimination. We have heard about discrimination in regard to housing and social security. I believe that the CRE should be given powers to instigate investigations on its own account, rather than having to wait until it receives an individual complaint. That sometimes leads to difficulties.
The Home Secretary hinted at a review of section I I funding. If the Government are indeed to embark on such a review, will the Minister tell us whether section 11 funding will be extended to Scotland, where it has never yet been provided? We live in a United Kingdom, and many areas in Scotland could benefit from such funding.
The situation in Europe has also been mentioned. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) pointed out that many of our constituents face considerable difficulties in travelling in Europe, and will continue to do so after 1993, when the barriers come down in continental Europe and people are more liable to be stopped and asked to account for themselves. We believe that black and Asian people will be especially affected. Unless protection is provided across Europe for the rights of our constituents and all other ethnic minorities, discrimination will continue.
As has been said, the Government could take the opportunity during their presidency of the Commission to promote a directive against racial discrimination. I am afraid that the Home Secretary is right to some extent: no matter how deficient the legislation is in this country, few European countries have legislation anywhere near as strong. If the Government are serious about promoting good race relations—not just in this country—they should raise with other member states the possibility of a directive to strike against racial discrimination across Europe. It is badly needed.
If we are moving into a Europe that has no frontiers, the need for citizens to have rights that they can exercise not just in their own country but in every country in the EC becomes more important. and nowhere more so than a directive striking against racial discrimination. That and a Bill of Rights that we could use throughout Europe would be a significant step forward in redressing the balance between the citizen and the state, not just in this country but in the European Community as a whole. A Bill of Rights would go some way to redressing the problems that are now occurring in the practice and operation of our immigration rules.
This debate is not about immigration, but it is difficult to discuss the difficulties that are being faced by many of our citizens without mentioning the immigration rules. All of us know that, whether it is intended or not—it does not matter how it came about—very few white people ever have any difficulty with immigration authorities in this country. Invariably we find—I found them when I visited Heathrow and spoke to the immigration officials—attitudes that are quite clearly conditioned by an ethos in the immigration and nationality department which tells them that black and Asian people are different. I heard it said by one immigration officer, "You know what these people are like—sir," he added, remembering that some respect had to be shown for a Member of Parliament.
It is interesting that the Home Secretary had no defence at all to the anomaly that was raised when we discussed the primary-purpose rule. Why is it that a French citizen can come into this country with his non-EC spouse and their dependants without let or hindrance, yet if a British citizen wishes to contract a marriage with someone who is not an EC citizen, especially someone who is black or Asian and is not an EC citizen, he or she must pass the primary-purpose rule? Getting their children to join them presents even greater difficulties. That is a double standard, and it is absurd. The Government will have to tackle it whether they like it or not. It might be better if the Government themselves were to tackle it rather than wait for the European Court to tell them that they have to scrap the rule. The primary-purpose rule is indefensible and it needs to be tackled.
I also agree with my hon. Friends that, especially following the scrapping of hon. Members' rights to make representations, the lack of any effective right of review of the operation of the immigration rules means that decisions are becoming increasingly absurd and increasingly open to challenge because immigration officers know that there is no effective challenge to their decisions. It is no use saying to somebody, "Go back 3,000 or 4,000 miles and appeal," because very often the reason for the visit may have passed by that time.
The Government must accept that the immigration rules are discriminatory. To some extent, all immigration rules are discriminatory, by their very nature, but unless the Government address the injustices, the sense of frustration that many of our citizens feel is likely to increase.
If the Government want a classless society that is at ease with itself, they must too realise that many of our citizens feel that they are not wanted and are forgotten by the Government. Yes, it is all very well to put fine words in the amendment and for an emollient speech to be made by the Home Secretary, but the people of this country see what the Government did, what their spokespeople did before the election, and what they did in practice. Unfortunately, Government action is very different from the words of the debate. I very much hope that, when we return to the subject, which will not be in the too-distant future, the Government will at least have some concrete and positive proposals to put before the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I have listened to the debate with interest and close attention.
As my time is very short, and as I may not otherwise refer to him, I should particularly like to single out the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). He made a first-rate maiden speech. He displayed that informed good judgment that is to be expected from a former political adviser to the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and an admirable anger and disgust at racial attacks. The House will also have warmed to his remarks about his predecessors, particularly his tribute to Tim Raison, who is much liked and much respected on both sides of the Chamber. Hon. Members look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend again.
The debate has properly ranged widely, as race relations bear on most aspects of our national life. It has


occasioned strong feelings as well. That is natural as discrimination can have a powerful impact on the lives of those in minority communities. I have no quarrel with hon. Members who draw attention to the discrimination that undoubtedly exists. That is why the Government are pursuing vigorously policies designed to end racial discrimination and disadvantage and to promote equal opportunity.
However, it is extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should argue, as he did and as his party does in the motion, that ethnic minorities receive less than their fair share of national resources when, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reminded the House, vast programmes are directed to the inner cities where the great majority of ethnic minority communities live. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, those programmes amount to about £4 billion a year.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook sought to justify that remark by saying that resources had been withdrawn from local government. But local government spending has continued to rise, and the Government's contribution to that expenditure is distributed fairly across the country by the rate grant formula that was agreed with local authorities. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook simply did not make out his case on resources, hence our amendment. I had much more sympathy with some of the other points that he made.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about discrimination in jobs and the higher ratio of unemployment suffered by ethnic minorities. He was right to do so, although he was wrong to ascribe, if I heard him correctly, all the problems to discrimination. He felt that the anti-discrimination law, which impinges only indirectly on individual cases, was inadequate, but he forgets that the CRE has effectively used certain cases to open negotiations with companies and organisations to change their recruitment and promotion policies for the better. British Rail is a successful case in point. The CRE has also helped the police to develop their policies, too. We can see the benefits of that. Persuasion, backed by the law, is the right way.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to ethnic monitoring, as did several hon. Members. It has a useful role. We have it in the police, the prison service and the probation service, and, through the Criminal Justice Act 1991, we have a statutory obligation to monitor the impact of the criminal justice system on minorities. That will both illumine the right hon. Gentleman's point and show the way to the solution of problems such as bail, which he mentioned.
The right hon. Gentleman referred also to the desire of ethnic minorities to be visited by their non-resident relatives, and he spoke as though the natural wish is constantly being thwarted. It is not. [Interruption.] Each year, from the Indian sub-continent, for example, come more than 200,000 short-term visitors. They get their visas within 24 hours of applying. For the most part, they apply for them in new purpose-built visa sections that are designed to make visa applications more comfortable and efficient. Far from discouraging bona fide visitors, we welcome them. Alas, a proportion are not bona fide visitors; entry clearance officers refuse up to 16 per cent. of visa applicants from the ISC—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way.
They are refused because the ECOs are not satisfied that they intend just to visit rather than stay. The overwhelming number of applicants are given visas. Alas, of that number, a sizeable proportion overstay. Last year, one in 12 Pakistani visitors with a visa applied for asylum at the end of their visit in order to remain here. In the light of those facts, I just do not believe that entry clearance officers are generally ready to say no when they should say yes. They might say no when they should say yes at times; but it is equally clear that they say yes when they should say no.
I have only a few moments left, although I have many points to cover. I conclude by saying that none of us wants any member of our ethnic minorities to be denied the opportunities that Britain has to offer. Discrimination and disadvantage have no place in British society. We are seeking with thoroughness and determination to root them out. That is why I ask the House to reject the Opposition motion and to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 311.

Division No. 25]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainger, Nicholas
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ms Ann


Alton, David
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Connarty, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Battle, John
Cryer, Bob


Bayley, Hugh
Cummings, John


Beckett, Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bell, Stuart
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dafis, Cynog


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joe
Darling, Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Blunkett, David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Donald


Boyce, Jimmy
Dixon, Don


Boyes, Roland
Dobson, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Donohoe, Brian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Burden, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Byers, Stephen
Enright, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Etherington, William


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fisher, Mark


Cann, James
Flynn, Paul


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Clapham, Michael
Foulkes, George






Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galloway, George
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Michael
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Milburn, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gordon, Mildred
Morgan, Rhodri


Graham, Thomas
Morley, Elliot


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward


Heppell, John
Olner, William


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Neill, Martin


Hinchliffe, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoey, Kate
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pendry, Tom


Hood, Jimmy
Pickthall, Colin


Hoon, Geoff
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Purchase, Ken


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)
Randall, Stuart


Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Raynsford, Nick


Jamieson, David
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Greville
Reid, Dr John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)
Roche, Ms Barbara


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooker, Jeff


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rooney, Terry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)
Salmond, Alex


Khabra, Piara
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Simpson, Alan


Lewis, Terry
Skinnner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Squire, Rachael (Dunfermline W)


McFall, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stevenson, George


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mahon, Alice
Tipping, Paddy


Mallon, Seamus
Turner, Dennis


Mandelson, Peter
Tyler, Paul


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wallace, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)





Wareing, Robert N
Wise, Audrey


Watson, Mike
Worthington, Tony


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Winnick, David
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cran, James


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aitken, Jonathan
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alexander, Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Day, Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Elletson, Harold


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bates, Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Body, Sir Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Andrew
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fry, Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Budgen, Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hague, William


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Churchill, Mr
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clappison, James
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hannam, Sir John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harris, David


Coe, Sebastian
Haselhurst, Alan


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, Nicholas


Congdon, David
Hawksley, Warren


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hendry, Charles


Cormack, Patrick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert






Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Merchant, Piers


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Milligan, Stephen


Horam, John
Mills, Iain


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Moate, Roger


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Moss, Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Nelson, Anthony


Jenkin, Bernard
Neubert, Sir Michael


Jessel, Toby
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Norris, Steve


Key, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Kilfedder, James
Oppenheim, Phillip


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ottaway, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Page, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Paice, James


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Patnick, Irvine


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Knox, David
Pawsey, James


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Pickles, Eric


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Lawrence, Ivan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Legg, Barry
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Leigh, Edward
Powell, William (Corby)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rathbone, Tim


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Redwood, John


Lidington, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Richards, Rod


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Riddick, Graham


Lord, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Luff, Peter
Robathan, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


MacKay, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Madel, David
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Mans, Keith
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Marland, Paul
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Marlow, Tony
Sackville, Tom


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian





Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shersby, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Sims, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trend, Michael


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trimble, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speed, Keith
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Spink, Dr Robert
Ward, John


Spring, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sproat, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Stephen, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stern, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stewart, Allan
Widdecombe, Ann


Streeter, Gary
Wiggin, Jerry


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Sweeney, Walter
Willetts, David


Sykes, John
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomason, Roy
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Timothy Boswell.


Thornton, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House commends the Government's determination to work towards a multi-racial society, to which all ethnic minority communities contribute fully and in which all enjoy equal opportunities, as evidenced by their policies for tackling racial discrimination and disadvantage and for promoting equal opportunities, and by expenditure programmes directed at the special needs of ethnic minorities.

Maxwell Pensioners

[Relevant document: Second report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1991–92 (HC61-II) on the Operation of Pension Funds.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, whilst supporting the Government's initiative to recover from the banks, financial institutions and the Maxwell family the pension fund assets which were stolen, notes the Government's responsibility both because the Department of Trade and Industry gave an investment licence to two Maxwell companies which he used as a channel to steal the pension monies, and because of the deep flaws in the current supervisory system; considers that the new committee to review pension law should not have to take a year to complete its work. and believes that emergency measures to protect occupational pension fund members should be taken without delay; and calls upon the Government to provide a more realistic sum than £2.5 million to underwrite the pensions of current and deferred Maxwell pensioners, some of whom have already suffered major losses through no fault of their own.
The purpose of the debate and of our motion is to test the adequacy of the commitments given by the Secretary of State for Social Security yesterday to the Maxwell pensioners. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday:
It is certainly our intention that those who are not being paid pensions and those threatened with a cut in pensions should receive and maintain pension fund payments.
Our motion is designed to probe whether that commitment is as copper-bottomed and complete as it might appear at first glance.
The Secretary of State's case is that his £2.5 million is a short-term emergency fund, until the £100 million locked in the common investment fund can be allocated to the nine different Maxwell schemes by a court ruling. That is his short-term solution and he was careful to distinguish it from a long-term solution
to resolve the long-term problem; that will be done through the return of stolen assets, and the securing of contributions to the trust fund from those who feel obliged and willing to contribute.
Those are the Secretary of State's words and that was the Government's case. The Opposition believe that that case is misconceived, unreal and manifestly inadequate, and I shall set out the grounds for that view.
First, and most important, a denial of any Government responsibility towards the Maxwell pensioners was inherent in everything that the Secretary of State said yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman was careful to insist, several times, that—to quote just one occasion—
No Government could accept a duty to make good losses resulting from fraud or theft of savings.

Mr. Win Griffiths: He said that several times.

Mr. Meacher: Yes, he did. Later, he also said:
nor is there any question of Government accepting responsibility."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992: Vol. 209, c. 20-29.]
But the Government are responsible in general and in the particular. They are responsible in general because it was no ordinary fraud; it was theft from a pension fund set up as a result of a tax by Government. Pension contributions are not voluntary investments at will. Until 1988, the

Government forced every employee to contribute to an occupational pension fund if they were not in the state earnings-related pension scheme. Therefore, the Government are ultimately responsible for those moneys, as they are for the secure and efficient use of other tax moneys.
I submit that the Government are also responsible in the particular because, as is well known, the Department of Trade and Industry granted a licence, before the independent regulatory organisation came into force, to London and Bishopsgate Investments and to another Maxwell company, which Maxwell then used as a channel to steal pensioners' money. The significance of that concession was well understood by one of Maxwell's closest associates, Mr. Larry Trachtenberg, who wrote at the end of a memorandum to Kevin Maxwell—one of the directors of LBI—
The most significant aspect of this approval is the way in which it should strengthen LBI's IMRO application. Historically, the approval from the DTI for a Principals Licence was never easy to obtain and the fact that LBI managed to do so, so near the end of the old regime's life, is thought to be a very good sign.
In other words, it is clear that the DTI originally sold the pass.
The Government are responsible in the particular on other grounds. The Investment Management Regulatory Organisation was clearly flawed in its supervision. One of the Maxwell companies was not visited for nearly two years after IMRO authorised it, and then it gave LBI a clean bill of health, even when it found "no formal record" of transactions considered to be an essential control. In that context, we would like an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Securities and Investments Board report on IMRO will be published. I would be happy to give way if he wishes to intervene now to give such an assurance. On top of that, the Government failed to comply with the EEC directive 80/987, which required European member states to introduce legislation to protect the pay and pensions of employees in the event of their employers' insolvency.
For all these reasons, there is no question but that the Government are responsible, both in general and in the particular circumstances of this Maxwell scandal. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State the question that I put to him yesterday at Question Time, but that he evaded. As he is responsible, will he accept the proposal from the Maxwell pensioners action group that their pension rights be assigned to him, that he pays their pensions and that he then recovers the costs by pursuing the banks? That is what the Government did in the case of Barlow Clowes shareholders, for whom the Government had far less responsibility. I think that I am right in saying that they had far less responsibility. I think that I am right in saying that the Government have now clawed back £100 million of the £160 million that they originally paid out in that case.
I ask again, directly to the Secretary of State, what I asked him yesterday. If the Government were right to do that in the Barlow Clowes case, why is it not right for them to do so in the case of the Maxwell pensioners, who are far more deserving? I would be happy to allow the Secretary of State to intervene to answer that question, which is the central question in the debate. I am asking him to comment directly on that question, of which I gave him notice 24 hours ago. It is not a question that I am popping at him now.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I am hoping to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, and I shall be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman's speech in the normal way.

Mr. Meacher: That is fine, as long as we have an answer to this question—the central question in the debate. It is not acceptable that the only responsibility that the Government acknowledge in this whole wretched business is payment of the guaranteed minimum pension. I have been sent two examples by the action group of what this will mean in practice. The first of these concerns Mr. Cliff Jubb of Sheffield, who worked for the engineering firm Newton Chambers for 49 years and had been enjoying a pension of £300 a month. He is 74 years old and his guaranteed minimum pension will now be £6.72. Another pensioner aged 68, Mr. John Breadmore, enjoyed a pension of £10,000 a year and has now been informed that his guaranteed minimum pension will be £201.68 a year. That is slightly under £4 a week.
Are those the kind of consequences that the Secretary of State thinks it right and proper for pensioners to be left with if, as so many people believe—not only in the House but outside—the £2.5 million proves to be totally inadequate? Is he aware that those would be the consequences. and does he accept them?

Mr. Stephen Day: I have the privilege of serving on the Social Security Select Committee and I am member of the all-party group formed to look after the interests of the Maxwell pensioners, to which I am committed. Up till now, when the Opposition Front Bench team has become involved, the pensioners' interests have been looked after on an all-party basis motivated by commitment to dealing with the issues rather than scoring cheap political points and trying to point the finger at the Government. If the hon. Gentleman were serious about helping the Maxwell pensioners, as I know that both the all-party group and the Social Security Select Committee are, he would not turn this issue into a party political football.

Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is getting worked up into such an artificial lather. I am one of those—he may have been another—who spoke to many of the Maxwell pensioners after the Secretary of State's statement yesterday. I got the strong impression from all to whom I spoke—both the leaders and the individual members—that they were thoroughly dissatisfied with the content of that statement and with the uncertainty of the outcome with which they are presented. It is that to which I am speaking today.
Let me return to the Government's strategy, as outlined by the Secretary of State yesterday. Even if we leave aside the fundamental question of the Government's responsibility in this matter, there is one huge flaw in the approach that the right hon. Gentleman is adopting. It is that his is a voluntary scheme. Therefore, there is no guarantee whatsoever as to the outcome. It is literally all a wish and a prayer. Here are some quotations from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. In his statement he. said:
the institutions involved may well feel some moral obligation to assist the pensioners".
Later, in reply to a question, he said:
I hope that much more money will come from the City".

Dr. Keith Hampson: It probably will.

Mr. Meacher: We shall see. The Secretary of State also
said:
there is also a moral question, which we invite the banks and other financial institutions to answer.
My last, and perhaps most important, quotation is this:
the onus is on those who had dealings with Maxwell in the past to examine their consciences and to see whether they should share the profits that they made in the past with those who suffered a great loss at the hands of Maxwell."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 19-24.]

Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I have been quoting the right hon. Gentleman's words, so I would be glad to allow him to intervene.

Mr. Lilley: The motion before the House urges the Government to underwrite the pensions of existing and future pensioners. Is it not the case that, if we did so, the chance of anyone contributing to pensions or returning a single stolen security voluntarily and ahead of time would be zero?

Mr. Meacher: I am coming on to exactly that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that that is often used to evade the issue—

Mr. Rupert Allason: Read Lord Williams and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is out of order.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State has come to the core of the matter. He is keeping down the Government's contribution so as to ensure that others will still have an incentive to make a contribution. If they do not, we shall have the disadvantages of both worlds—no contributions and a tiny Government commitment. As I made clear in Question Time yesterday, I believe that the Government should underwrite those pensions and then use the powers at their disposal to ensure that they get the money back from the banks and institutions.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I want to move on, and I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. I may give way later on.

Mr. Lilley: By definition, the legal powers are already available. We are asking people to go beyond their legal obligations to their moral obligations. In those circumstances, if the moral obligations have already been underwritten by the Government, what possibility is there of anybody fulfilling his moral obligations? What powers does the hon. Gentleman suggest that I should take to force people to meet their moral obligations?

Mr. Meacher: I am about to deal with that exact issue. The right hon. Gentleman will then see that he does have the powers; the problem is that he does not want to use them because he wants to keep the scheme voluntary so that the City might be prepared to give the odd contribution if it chooses. If the right hon. Gentleman really believes his comments of yesterday, which I quoted, he is more naive than I thought. The City is about as conscious-stricken as Maxwell was law-abiding.
It could not be clearer that the Government have one law for the City and another for the trade unions. The


National Union of Mineworkers was pursued by an army of lawyers, and its funds were sequestrated because it failed to hold a ballot. The banks, which are holding on to £200 million in stolen assets, are given a limp slap on the wrist and then told to examine their consciences.
The right hon. Gentleman has said again today that he has no powers to force the banks' hands, but he has those powers and I shall tell him what they are. For the banks to operate, their banking licence must be reviewed regularly. I submit to the Secretary of State that it would be perfectly proper to threaten to refuse to renew the licence of any bank which is knowingly holding on to stolen assets and which refuses to hand them back. If he or his colleagues have those powers, why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to use them? They could secure the outcome that we all want to see. That is the question he must answer.
There is another reason why the right hon. Gentleman should take a much tougher line. It is frankly deeply offensive to the Maxwell pensioners, living on the edge of poverty, to be offered a few pounds to keep them going while those who perpetrated the scandal are still living openly and legally in the lap of luxury. Not only does Kevin Maxwell still live in a £1.5 million Chelsea home, but he and his brother are allowed by the liquidators to draw a weekly living allowance of £1,500 from their otherwise frozen bank accounts. Apparently, they even have the money to consider establishing a new media empire. We are told that Mr. Larry Trachtenberg still has the free use of a £350,000 bonus that he received from London and Bishopsgate holdings for services rendered. What are the Government doing when, nine months later, the guilty still enjoy all the trappings of wealth while the victims are fobbed off with an average of £18 a week each, if they get anything at all?

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the two Maxwell brothers showed total contempt for the House of Commons when they refused to answer questions before the Select Committee on Social Security? They carry on with their millionaire lifestyle and show contempt for the victims, but, as my hon. Friend said, the Government show no concern whatsoever. It will be interesting to learn whether the Attorney-General will make a statement to the House—he should make it as quickly as possible—on when criminal prosecutions will occur.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. Members of the Select Committee on Social Security were extremely upset, to say the least, when the Maxwell brothers came to us and said that they wanted a right of silence. We took extensive advice about that from within the House of Commons. At least one statement made yesterday about the Maxwell brothers might prejudice a fair trial, so will you advise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be helpful if all hon. Members did not seek to make cheap points at the expense of a fair trial?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter is not sub judice.

Mr. Meacher: I now turn to the question of the £2.5 million. It is a tiny amount precisely because of the Government's voluntary approach, which the Secretary of State made clear a few moments ago. He admitted that his rescue package must be small, otherwise it would let the

banks and the other financial institutions off the hook from having to contribute. That means that the Maxwell pensioners will be left in the middle between the hard-nosed meanness in the City and the feebleness of the right hon. Gentleman in failing to enforce reimbursement. Instead of shilly-shallying with appeals to consciences and for discretionary contributions, the right hon. Gentleman should be underwriting the pensions in full and using every legal means and every other lawful pressure to make certain that the banks and the other institutions repay. That is the gap in the rescue package.

Mr. John Greenway: rose—

Mr. Iain Duncan-Smith: rose—

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Meacher: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens).

Mr. Dickens: As we are examining our consciences, does my hon. Friend—I call him my hon. Friend because he represents a seat in Oldham—recall the way in which Labour Members, at each party conference, fought their way through the picket line of printers to get to Maxwell's champagne? Will the Labour party return to the pension funds the contributions that it received from Robert Maxwell? Labour Members are frightened of the Minister asking for people to examine their consciences because that means that the Labour party must start to examine its own.

Mr. Meacher: As usual, the red-faced hon. Gentleman brings a serious issue into contempt.
The fact is that the Government's figures do not add up. The Secretary of State's case is that the £2.5 million is enough to keep the pension funds afloat until the £100 million is released from the common investment board in about six months' time. Even then, that will leave a shortfall of £458 million. The Government hope that the banks will repay £217 million of that, and they hope, perhaps dream would be more appropriate, that the remaining £241 million will be covered by voluntary contributions. That is about as likely as Mrs. Thatcher becoming Prime Minister again. I know that is something that the right hon. Gentleman devoutly desires, but it will not happen.
As everyone can surely see, at the end of the day, there will be a huge hole in the Maxwell finances. It is perfectly clear that, after all the political hoo-hah has died down, as the Government hope, it will be the deferred pensioners —those who intend to retire in 10 to 20 years time—who will draw the short straw. Such is the cynical calculation that the Government have made and it is one that the rest of us, who have any belief in justice, must stop by making sure that the issue does not go away.
The right hon. Gentleman's rescue package is a huge con. It is designed to give cover to 6,000 pensioners only, when, with the wind-down of the Maxwell Media Corporation staff scheme and AGB funds, more than 12,000 are likely to require support in the next few months. There is no guarantee of a 100 per cent. top-up and the scheme will last only until the common investment fund is divided up. As I said, that is not the end of the problem. After a temporary respite, we shall be left with a much more serious long-term problem.
The provision of only £2.5 million to Maxwell pensioners is an insult when compared to the £160 million that was made available to the Barlow Clowes offshore speculators. Even the belated implementation of section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990, for which I am glad, will do almost nothing for the Maxwell pensioners unless they are made preferential creditors. I strongly press that course on the right hon. Gentleman, even at this stage. Until he takes powers that are adequate to the scale of the problem and recognises that hawking his begging bowl round the City is not only undignified but no answer to the scale of the crisis, the rescue package will remain a charade. We have tabled our motion to test the seriousness of the right hon. Gentleman's purpose.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
shares a deep concern for the distress pensioners face as a result of the pillaging of pension funds by Robert Maxwell; applauds the initiative taken by the Government to provide temporary, emergency funding to help those schemes which have a particularly acute short term problem; and, while welcoming the decision to initiate a thorough review of the framework of pension scheme law, notes with approval the important part that occupational pensions continue to play in ensuring increasing prosperity among the retired population of this country.
It is a pleasure, on our second encounter, to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), although I shall not be following him along his customary route, which is to go straight over the top, as he did again today.
Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman lambasted the Government response to the Maxwell affair. But he has misunderstood the problem, misrepresented the facts and misjudged the mood of the House. The House recognises that this is not an area for glib statements, easy solutions or partisan attacks. Most hon. Members support the carefully constructed package of measures that I announced yesterday. They have certainly been welcomed across a wide spectrum of opinion outside the House. The Times and The Independent both recognise that it would be wrong for the Government to underwrite the deficit left by
Maxwell's theft. So does The Guardian. Its leader said that
it would have been wrong—as the all-party social security select committee has noted—for the Government simply to bale out the bankrupt pension schemes. A much more subtle approach is needed … The Government's strategy is both clear and sensible … Mr. Lilley had a balance to strike yesterday between short-term pressure and long-term reconstruction … the initial balance is there.
I hope that by quoting The Guardian I have not discouraged the paper from supporting me again.

Dr. Hampson: There was an aspect of yesterday's welcome package that I hope my right hon. Friend will clarify. It concerns those Leeds pensioners who have lost their pensions for two months. There was no clear commitment yesterday that those payments would be paid retrospectively. Can my right hon. Friend relieve them of their anxiety?

Mr. Lilley: I cannot ensure that—[Interruption.]—but it is certainly the intention that payment will be made henceforth and that the grant will enable that payment to be made. I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raises.
Before dealing further with the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the all-party group on occupational pensions and the members of the Select Committee on Social Security in the last Parliament. It is a longstanding convention that occupants of this Bench, when presenting welcome proposals, present them as if they were entirely their own ideas, immaculately conceived and produced without any outside influence. I believe that the package that I announced yesterday would have been developed in direct response to the plight of pensioners without any outside prompting, but it is only fair to admit that the efforts of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) made its arrival all the more certain. I am grateful to them, to members of the all-party group and to members of the Select Committee on Social Security in the last Parliament. All of them were rowing in the same direction and we have all converged on similar ideas.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Many welcome the fact that there is to be a committee of inquiry, as announced by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, into the structure of pension funds. But does he accept that the disaster of the Maxwell pension fund was, in a sense, a disaster waiting to happen because of the inadequacy of the legal framework surrounding the ownership and control of pension funds and the degree of self-regulation that exists in the City? While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's need for a committee of inquiry, does he not think that 12 months is too long in this matter and that we need action more urgently to protect all the other pension funds and contributors to pension funds throughout the country from the kind of appalling scandal that we, through the Select Committee, have uncovered in the case of the Maxwell empire?

Mr. Lilley: No, I would not accept that it was inevitable that the Maxwell fraud would be perpetrated. To the extent that it, or the questions that have been raised following it, suggests that there should be changes in the pensions framework—the law and regulation of pensions—we see that we need seriously to consider those changes rather than to jump precipitately into changes without giving the issues proper consideration. I shall return to that matter later.

Mr. John Greenway: It is worth the House taking note of the fact that we are talking about two separate animals in terms of pension rules and regulations. There are large self-administered schemes, such as the Maxwell scheme, and it is right that, for compensation, people should look first and foremost to those who ran that scheme rather than to the Government. But a large number of occupational pension schemes in Britain are insured schemes and are subject to much more rigorous regulation. The pensioners in those cases are protected by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975. Many people would like reassurance from my right hon. Friend that their pensions are safe because of the protection given to them by that Act.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend, who is a leading expert on pension matters, is absolutely right. It is wrong to suggest that, because of this terrible crime, everybody should be going about in fear and trembling, particularly if they are in the sort of schemes to which my hon. Friend referred.


The hon. Member for Oldham, West and I agree that the Maxwell pensioners have been the innocent victims of a vile and unprecedented crime. But the Maxwell pensioners and the House do not want the undeliverable promises of the hon. Member for Oldham, West; they want a considered package of measures that will help to give them peace of mind about their immediate financial future, to secure the assets that will pay their pensions in the years ahead and to ensure that a similar crime can never happen again.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I will make a little progress before giving way further.
That is why, in my statement yesterday, I announced a package of five measures to deal with the short, medium and long-term issues raised by Maxwell. In the short term, we need to ease the acute pressures while assets are unlocked from the central fund. That is why I announced temporary, emergency funding to help schemes restore and maintain pension payments. That should give pensioners greater peace of mind about their immediate financial future.

Mr. David Madel: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress.
In the medium term, we must secure the return of stolen assets and any other funds to help pay pensions in the years ahead. To that end, I have established a special unit in my Department. It will work alongside the pension scheme trustees and others to secure the return of assets and their fair distribution between funds. The unit began work in embryo today.
I must tell the House that even if one was as successful as the hon. Member for Oldham, West believes it would be possible to be, deploying an array of powers that probably do not exist, in securing the return of all the stolen assets that were used as collateral for loans, that would still leave a considerable deficit. We expect the unit to establish a trust fund to mobilise support from those who recognise a moral obligation towards the Maxwell pensioners or who have an interest in maintaining faith in the integrity of the pensions industry.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I wish to make some progress, and I am outlining the measures. I will then come to matters that will give an opportunity for hon. Members to raise any points that they wish to put.
In addition to the fund, I announced the implementation of regulations under the Social Security Act 1990 which will have the effect of making Maxwell pension schemes ordinary creditors of their employer companies, though I emphasised that the financial benefits likely to flow from that were limited. Parliament did not grant power to the Minister to make regulations that would have made pension funds preferential creditors, rather than ordinary creditors, of the employer companies.
For the long term, we need a framework of law that will prevent such a crime ever recurring and which will provide

a firm basis for the pensions industry to grow. That is why I announced a wide-ranging review under Professor Goode.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Mr. Lilley: I am anxious, before giving way further, to finish outlining the measures that I announced yesterday.
The basic mistake of the hon. Member for Oldham, West is that he simply does not understand the problem. He fails to recognise that the acute short-term problem is distinct from the longer-term problem of restoring or replacing lost assets.
The Maxwell pension funds have some £230 million of assets safe in their hands, but £100 million of it is in the common investment fund that handles part of their investments, while the remainder is in individual schemes. It has not been possible to agree how much of that £100 million is attributable to each scheme. The trustees have therefore agreed to submit to a court ruling the allocation of that £100 million. But that will take a few months and, until then, that sum is frozen. Our repayable grant is designed simply to cope with the acute short-term pressures faced by the schemes while that situation persists. It will also enable progress to be made in securing the return of some of the stolen assets and obtaining other funds.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West and others ask, "Why £2.5 million?" That figure is based on my official experts' assessment of the position of the various schemes. They are better placed than anyone else to make such an assessment and have also taken into account the possibility that the court ruling may be later rather than sooner. So I am confident that the sum allocated is sufficient for the purpose.
As far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has no direct information about the state of Maxwell pension schemes. Yet his motion calls on the Government to provide "a more realistic sum". It is not clear why the hon. Gentleman feels that he is a good judge of what is realistic. Among the many admirable qualities that one associates with the hon. Gentleman, realism is not high on the list. I assume that he is demanding more on the principle of "never knowingly overbid". Indeed, his bids have been constantly rising. At the beginning of May, he called on the Government to mount a huge rescue operation, which he said that we could afford, costing £156 million. At the end of May, he called on the Government to meet the shortfall, which he then put at between £200 million and £300 million. His motion today calls for us to underwrite all the pension liabilities, which means accepting a current deficiency of £350 million. When the hon. Gentleman is comparing our £2.5 million with a £350 million deficiency, he is comparing apples with pears. The sum that we are making available is purely to deal with acute short-term pressures while frozen funds are being released. The longer-term deficiency can be resolved only by the return of assets and by securing other funds.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Returning to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal of yesterday, which is now at the heart of this debate, was there ever before a scheme for the loan of a lifebelt that was at once cash limited and time limited? What happens if and when the time limit runs out?

Mr. Lilley: I am confident that we have provided enough money, even assuming that the court takes longer


than it may to reach a judgment. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a loan. Technically, it is a repayable grant. In other words, we expect the schemes to repay only if they are successful in getting back their assets and are able to do so without detriment to the pensioners. I hope that I have made it clear that there is no question of individual pensioners having to repay any sum of money. That is out of the question.

Mr. Madel: My right hon. Friend referred to short-term measures and peace of mind. I refer to the Maxwell Communication works pension fund and possible difficulties after 1 July. Can he assure me that, because of the Government's short-term relief, individual pensioners will not have to fill in forms or contact people but that from 1 July their 100 per cent. pensions will come through automatically?

Mr. Lilley: I confirm that that is so. An arrangement between those handling the grant that we have made available and the scheme trustees, who will discuss how the money should be allocated, will enable the hardest-hit schemes to resume or maintain payment.

Mr. Meacher: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, from the beginning, I have consistently asked that the Government should treat the Maxwell pensioners in the same way as the Barlow Clowes speculators? He has still not answered that question. Although it was clear yesterday that he did not know how the £2.5 million was calculated, will he confirm that that sum is to provide protection for the Leeds pensioners and the MCC staff scheme only, and that if the AGB scheme and the MCC works scheme have problems in the next few months, it will not cover them?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. It has always been clear that Barlow Clowes is not a precedent. I shall ignore his contemptible description of those investors as "speculators". The £2.5 million grant is not limited to a specific fund, but we believe that it will be sufficient to help the funds maintain and resume pensions over that period.

Mr. George Mudie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lilley: I should like to make a little progress, because there was an opportunity at yesterday's statement for the normal process of question and answer.
I must not be too hard on the hon. Member for Oldham, West. The Opposition motion bears many signs of hasty redrafting. I understand that, prior to my statement, the Opposition were planning to table an uncharacteristically moderate motion calling for short-term help, while pressure was put on the financial institutions to help with the long-term shortfall. But now that it is precisely what we have done, so the hon. Gentleman has had to revert to form. He has gone back over the top and tabled a motion calling for us
to underwrite the pensions of current and deferred Maxwell pensioners
in their entirety.
No Government could, in effect, agree to reimburse everyone who has their savings stolen. The whole House knows that. Moreover, if any Government did underwrite all the pension schemes, they would, at a stroke, remove the pressure on banks and others to release stolen assets rapidly or to contribute to the fund that we are

establishing. The Opposition cannot deny that their motion would mean that not a penny would be contributed to the trust fund, and not a share certificate would be returned voluntarily early. The taxpayer would end up paying the whole of the largest possible bill.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a distinction between the general Maxwell pension funds and British International Helicopters Limited? His speech has made quite a play on moral obligations to people in the City and banks, and I wholly agree with him about that. However, does he accept that, as the Government owned British Airways when British Airways sold the helicopter company to Maxwell, they therefore have a moral obligation to those pensioners?

Mr. Lilley: That does not follow, but I hope that those pensioners can reach an accommodation with MGN. Obviously, I shall look closely at that.
Another question that was raised yesterday, which may lie behind many of the points that hon. Members wish to raise today, is why the Government are not offering a clear guarantee that all pensions will be paid in full—100 per cent.—in the coming months. We certainly intend to ease the position of pension schemes so that they can restore or maintain payment of pensions while frozen funds are being released, but we cannot offer an open-ended guarantee. Moreover, some schemes have resources just sufficient to continue paying part, but not all, of the pension. It will then be a matter of negotiation how much the scheme pays and how much is met by our grant. Clearly, it would be impossible to negotiate while offering to guarantee a 100 per cent. payment, but I am confident that the position of all Maxwell pensioners over the next few months is substantially safeguarded and vastly more secure than it would be without this scheme.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I speak on behalf of the AGB pensioner scheme. Is the Secretary of State aware how difficult it is for pensioners on low incomes to plan anything months ahead? Even on the basis of what the Secretary of State has said, such pensioners cannot plan this year's summer holiday or what to do for Christmas. On those pensioners' behalf, I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he will ensure that they are not left waiting until the last day of the last week of the last month before being told whether they will receive their next payment. Such insecurity is absolutely intolerable.

Mr. Lilley: I recognise that one of the legacies of Mr. Maxwell is the element of insecurity felt about the longer term. All I have been able to do is to try to ease the pressures, anguish and insecurity of the pensioners over this acute short-term period when schemes' funds cannot be allocated to pensioners as those funds are frozen. I do not pretend that we have relieved the longer-term anguish, which is a legacy of Mr. Maxwell.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West is keen to blame the Government for the pensioners' problems. As I said yesterday, crime is caused by criminals and in this case we know who the central villain was. It is nonsense to argue that, because a crime happened, the Government are to blame and so are liable to compensate the victims.
When a burglary occurs, we do not say that the police and property laws for which the Government are responsible have failed, so the Government are to blame


and must reimburse every householder. Of course, we must keep under constant review our systems for preventing fraud and theft from pension schemes. If we find sectors where improvements are needed, that cannot be held as an admission of responsibility for crimes that have not been prevented.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I have followed everything said by my right hon. Friend and agreed with him until he apparently said that there was only one person responsible for the crime and we could all blame Mr. Maxwell. In my view, all the directors of Mirror Group Newspapers and everyone connected with Maxwell who have had their fingers in the till for so long should have resigned months ago. Does not my right hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Lilley: I said that the central villain was Robert Maxwell. I am not making any judgment on whether any other people were involved. That is a matter for the Serious Fraud Office to establish.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State answer fully the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)? The Secretary of State is basically saying that in 1986 the Government handed over British Airways' helicopter division to the central criminal figure in the scandal. As he said yesterday in response to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Government knew that Maxwell had been reported as unfit to run a public company. Does not the Secretary of State think that, at the very least, the Government have a moral obligation to those British International Helicopter pensioners?

Mr. Lilley: Many of the companies in the Maxwell group were bought from other people. I do not believe that many people would think that previous owners have a moral responsibility for what the subsequent owners do. The helicopter division was bought from British Airways, and British Airways was not required to seek Government approval for that sale.
To return to the issue of blame, the hon. Member for Oldham, West asked specifically about the report of the Securities and Investments Board, and I promised to respond. It is up to the SIB to state whether it intends to publish the report. I understand—although I only have it second hand—that the SIB intends to publish its findings.
The review of pension law was a major aspect of yesterday's announcement. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that 12 months was too long a period for the review of pensions. I agree that the need is urgent. The House will recall that I have not only asked Professor Goode to report within 12 months, but said that if his committee finds changes that should be implemented urgently, it should report to me sooner. The committee needs time to invite evidence from all interested parties, and it will hold a number of public hearings.
I was interested to note that Sue Ward, a leading pensions expert, said on the Radio 4 PM programme yesterday that the review team would have to work hard to complete its task in 12 months. She said:
Twelve months was certainly not too long a time.
The Opposition motion states that
because of the deep flaws in the current supervisory system
the House

considers that the new committee to review pension law should not have to take a year to complete its work.
I think that most people would consider that, before changes are made to rectify deep flaws, there should be deep reflection.
In his article in The Times, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) states that he wants the review to consider reforms to make pension contributors holders of their own contributions. We have given the review deliberately wide terms of reference to look at the status and ownership of occupational pension funds. We have not ruled out consideration of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—far from it. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's ideas are sufficiently attractive to warrant others considering them if the review team feels that they are not relevant to its work.

Mr. Win Griffiths: This debate is principally centred on the Maxwell pension scandal, but the Secretary of State should be aware that pension funds are in deep difficulties. The Oakwood pension plan affects my constituents. It appears that a director of the employers took the major decisions related to the pension plan against the advice of the actuary. Will Professor Goode consider such aspects, as well as considering what went wrong with the Maxwell pension scheme?

Mr. Lilley: Very much so—I am sure that Professor Goode will want to look at any evidence of deficiencies and problems. It would be quite right to do so if we are to change the law and regulate to ensure that such crimes do not recur. I shall draw the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman to Professor Goode's attention.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that, with the help of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, British Coal officials have just awarded themselves another pension holiday? What does he think about that in view of the scandal that has come to light? When I met some of the Daily Mirror pensioners yesterday, I bumped into some Daily Express pensioners. They told me that a few years ago the Daily Express changed its pension fund and as a result they do not receive year-on-year increases. The Daily Express officials fiddled the fund and created a new one for the current employees, but those who worked for the paper for 30 or 40 years will not get a penny piece. The Maxwell scandal has highlighted the fact that, across the board, pension managers and organisations such as British Coal and the Daily Express have been fiddling funds and depriving pensioners of their proper entitlement. What is the Secretary of State's view on that?

Mr. Lilley: The Maxwell case was certainly a terrible scandal, but the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) sees capitalist plots, scandals and conspiracies everywhere. If he intervenes too many times in my speech and his hon. Friends see the names Lilley and Skinner linked together in the pages of the Official Report, they will think that he is part of a major capitalist enterprise—[Interruption.] I never thought that I should see the hon. Member for Bolsover lost for words—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Lilley: Those listening to the hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Bolsover would think that occupational pension schemes were disastrous and that all occupational pensioners were at risk of fraud. People


listening to the debate will realise that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has a hidden agenda to abolish private pension arrangements and replace them with an expanded state earnings-related pension scheme. The hon. Gentleman is doubly mistaken.
Occupational pension schemes have largely been a great success and 69 per cent. of recently retired pensioners now receive an occupational pension. That compares with just 54 per cent. in 1979. Average incomes from occupational pensions almost doubled between 1979 and 1988, the last year for which we have figures. Moreover, they increased the volume of long-term savings available for long-term investment in industry. There is no way in which public finances could accommodate the sort of expanded SERPS that the hon. Member for Oldham, West would like and appears to have in mind. Future generations could not possibly cope with the level of debt that would be stored up. The success of occupational pensions is matched by personal pensions which now extend to 4.5 million people.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Occupational pension schemes may have been extremely successful in recent years. However, does the Secretary of State agree that the profits from those investments, which are nothing less than the deferred earnings of the occupational pensioner, should be redirected in the interests of members of pension schemes and nobody else?

Mr. Lilley: I have explicitly made it possible for Professor Goode to consider that issue in his review.
Personal pensions have dramatically widened the range of people with their own pension to supplement the state pension. They have also increased the volume of committed long-term savings available for investment in industry as well as giving millions of people greater flexibility and mobility. I accept that not just the private sector but the state has a role to play. The Government have ensured that total expenditure on benefits to the elderly has increased since 1979 by one third in real terms.
We have met our commitment to maintain the value of the basic pension and will continue to do so. We have provided systematically for real increases in pensioner premiums by directing money to the poorer pensioners. Overall pensioners' incomes have increased by 34 per cent. since we came to office. That is five times faster than under Labour, not least because under the last Labour Government pensioners lost heavily as a result of inflation. I am not in the mood to listen to self-righteous lectures from the Opposition on protecting pensions.

Mr. Meacher: rose—

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman had his say.
The Government recognise and share the real concerns expressed by hon. Members and by people outside about Maxwell pensioners. We also share the revulsion at the crime that was committed. We shall give the Maxwell pensioners as much peace of mind as possible about the immediate financial future. We shall help to unlock and to secure the return of assets that will pay the pensions in the months and years ahead. Through the review that we have established we shall do all that we can to ensure that similar crimes can never happen again. We are taking real and practical steps in a highly complex area and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief because many hon. Members with constituency interests wish to take part in the debate.
I hope that the debate will send out three clear messages. The first is that the House welcomes the Government's rescue package. At this stage we are not especially interested in the amount of money or in where the idea for the amount came from. The House is anxious to ensure that in the short term every pensioner who was not receiving a pension and all those who were at risk of receiving a reduced pension will receive a full pension. We leave it to the Government to ensure that the funds are adequate to meet that important immediate objective.
The second message which I hope will go out is that the Secretary of State realises the extent of support from all hon. Members for his measures not only to retrieve the funds that were clearly misappropriated, but to reach those people who did well during the Maxwell years and who could make substantial contributions. We shall examine with interest the size of those contributions. I hope that the Secretary of State will not ignore the support in the House and that he will mobilise it if the need arises.
The third message is about the very long term. The Secretary of State rightly said that if he suggested that the taxpayer should foot the bill, few contributions would be forthcoming. He must realise what the feelings of his own hon. Friends and Opposition Members would be if his strategy failed or partially failed. The mood of the House is for him to press on urgently to get the contributions. We shall not be satisfied if at the end of the day those contributions are inadequate. The Secretary of State said that such statements might damage his efforts to regain assets and contributions for the scheme. I think not. Most matters that we deal with depend on the striking of a balance. Jimmy Thomas once said that if one could not ride two horses at once one should not be part of the circus. The Secretary of State must be aware that if his efforts to gain contributions are unsuccessful and he says that there is no help for these pensioners, the mood of the House will not be as easy-going as that of a circus.

Mr. Stephen Day: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on an issue that greatly concerns all hon. Members, and especially those of us who met pensioners yesterday. I am sure that all hon. Members have constituents who are affected. In my constituency, 40 to 50 pensioners are affected. I am sure that those who came to see me, and especially those who had been told that they had received their last cheque, will be well pleased with the Secretary of State's announcement yesterday.
Of course the announcement is no solution to the ultimate problems and the traumas that undoubtedly face pensioners. They have been placed in this situation not by the Government—although to hear the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) one would think that it was all the Government's fault—but by those who certainly should have known better and whose actions were no credit to themselves or to the human race.
Whatever our political viewpoint, we are all totally committed, as are the Government, to justice for the pensioners. We must ensure that Maxwell pensioners have long-term security, and the Secretary of State's


announcement yesterday goes some way towards providing that. The Government can only give a lead and they have accepted their responsibility by ensuring that short-term security is provided. That was one of the specific aims of the all-party group on which it specifically campaigned. I pay tribute to the hon. Members on that group who saw the issue to its conclusion.
I am distressed at what I heard from the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I have nothing but praise for the way in which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke. He spoke for me and, I suspect, for many hon. Members in that he encapsulated what I believe to be the true interests of the Maxwell pensioners. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, as I tried to intimate in my intervention during his speech, angered me enormously and did no service to the Maxwell pensioners. The worst possible scenario for the pensioners would be for those of us in the Chamber to start trying to score political points from the suffering of others.

Mr. Graham Allen: That is what the hon. Gentleman is doing now.

Mr. Day: I am making the very points that I have maintained throughout my interest in this subject on the Select Committee and as a member of the all-party group.
Quite rightly, the Select Committee was involved in this matter for some time during the previous Parliament. When we were debating and investigating the issue, we acted on an all-party basis. In fact, there was no division when the report was written as it was supported unanimously. That is the position that I am determined to defend, despite the attempts of the hon. Member for Oldham, West to destroy that consensus. I hope that hon. Members will remember the words of the hon. Member for Birkenhead and those of us who support his stance. If, like myself, he is honoured to be reappointed to the Select Committee and continues as its Chairman, that will be the best thing for the interests of the Maxwell pensioners, as I know that he and most other hon. Members have their interests at heart.
I commend what the Government have done in the short term. I hope. that they will pursue the banks, which have a moral obligation to return the Maxwell pensioners' money that is in their hands because of the illegal action of others. I hope that the House will reject the motion and the intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad that the debate is taking place, although not in every case is it being pursued in a way that is likely to achieve the best result. As the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) acknowledged, there are probably very few hon. Members who do not have some constituents who are affected. Some of us have substantially more than the hon. Gentleman. I have the operational headquarters of British International Helicopters in my constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has its northern base. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is our representative on the all-party committee and is pushing the case for compensation. He has a substantial number of affected pensioners in his constituency, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member

for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who intervened during the statement yesterday, also has a considerable number affected. I wish to speak on the general principles on behalf of all my hon. Friends.
I accept to some extent the Secretary of State's argument that, simply because people have broken the law, the Government should not be held fully responsible. However, we must acknowledge that what has arisen in many ordinary people's minds is surprise and shock that it should be possible for people to be able to get their hands on pension fund money in this way. To that extent, the House must welcome an urgent review to try to ensure that we plug that loophole as well as securing compensation for those who have suffered from the fact that the law is not up to scratch now.
It may be a naive question, but millions of people outside the House will probably want to know how it is possible for companies to get their hands on pension funds, which are the payments of employees and which are supposed to be held in trust and run by trustees. Is it right that pension funds should be able to invest in their own companies, given the conflict of interest that arises? Millions of people probably did not realise that that was possible and are surprised to know that it is. I hope that that will be taken into account in the review.
The pensioners have had a long and anxious wait and yesterday's announcement, although welcome, is not the end of the road. I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the argument about the sum of money is really irrelevant. The important issue, as was said yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is to seek the assurance that for the period designated by the Secretary of State every pensioner who would not be getting a pension because of the parlous state of the pension fund will receive their pension in full. That is the simple assurance that everybody is looking for. The Secretary of State has made progress on that, although I hope that in the reply the Minister will make it absolutely and unequivocally clear that that is the case.
It is inevitable that parallels will be drawn with the Barlow Clowes affair. However. I accept that it is not exactly the same thing. I accept the Secretary of State's argument that to suggest that those who invested in Barlow Clowes were wild speculators is absurd. Nevertheless, there is a recognised distinction in that those people decided to invest in something that was giving a better-than-average return. They were taking a risk and should have appreciated that. However, they did so in the belief that the company was properly regulated by a Government agency. Clearly, the ombudsman took the view that they had some justification for that faith, that the agency had failed and that there was at least a moral responsibility. As a result, the Government put up £180 million as a rescue package.
Pensioners who have deducted at source a percentage of their salary to be invested through trustees to provide them with an income after retirement expect to have a regime that protects the pension fund. They will inevitably make comparisons if they do not secure full compensation. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead and the Secretary of State that pressure of every kind must be brought to bear on the banks and the City financial institutions to make a full and proper contribution to the rescue fund. Many questions will be asked and people will want to know under what sort of morality or business


practice banks are prepared to hang on to stolen money when its return would save some of their other customers from personal bankruptcy. People will believe, rightly, that the banking profession is in grave danger of bringing itself into disrepute if it does not release that money and contribute to the refunding of the pension fund.
The City institutions must think about this, too. It is important to put it on record that the vast majority of pension funds run by the City of London are honestly and well-managed and achieve substantial capital growth in relation to the contributions made. After all, that is the City's unique reputation in both the national and international market. However, that reputation could be seriously tarnished if this scandal is not resolved in a way that gives honour, satisfaction and comfort to the innocent victims who are very ordinary people.

Mr. Frank Field: Is not the point stronger than that? The pension schemes kept saying that everything was safe and those of us who raised questions about safety and reform were told by the bigwigs in the pension industry that we were creating trouble. It is their moral responsibility to make a large contribution to this scheme.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes the case extremely well. I hope that when the institutions outside the House read this debate they will understand the strength of feeling behind it.
Those institutions should consider an additional point. In the early part of the previous Parliament I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We investigated the implications of the single market for the financial services industry in Britain. The Committee visited many of the main financial centres in Europe, notably, and most importantly, Frankfurt. We pressed the German Government to recognise the expertise that exists in the City of London and the important opportunity for German consumers to gain access to such expertise.
The House will be aware that the Germans thought that the City of London's practices were risky. They did not like the way in which moneys could be mixed without absolute guarantees and security for pensioners. The net result is that German pension funds are more expensive than ours but are more securely guaranteed, or at least that will be the German perception. If City institutions do not contribute, they will severely damage their ability to sell their expertise in the single market as it is established in the next few years. Even if they are not prepared to accept the moral strictures of the House, that fact should be taken into account. It is bad business.
I should like finally to deal with my interest in British International Helicopters. The Secretary of State will be aware that I and others believe that the company is different from others in the Maxwell group, for reasons that were partially explained in my intervention. I am grateful for his agreeing to meet the separate all-party group that has been established, when we will have an opportunity to press our case in more detail.
British International Helicopters was the helicopter company of British Airways when it was a nationalised industry. Its main operational base is at Aberdeen airport in my constituency. It has bases in Sumburgh in Shetland and covering the Scilly isles in the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The company's

southern access to the North sea is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), and its head office is in Oxford.
Since the early days of the North sea, the company has provided taxi services to and from the rigs and platforms. Lord King, the chairman of British Airways, conducted a strenuous campaign to ensure that the Nott assurances—that British Airways should be privatised as a single entity—were honoured. As part of the campaign, myself, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and the then hon. Member for Banff and Buchan were invited to present ourselves—I cannot put it another way—at a public meeting in my constituency, which most of the employees attended. Before several hundred people, we were invited to give categorical assurances that we would support the campaign to privatise British Airways as a single entity.' Not surprisingly, faced with so many constituents, we agreed to do so.
Before the privatisation took place, British Airways sold the company. It tried to sell it to a business man—I remember blowing the whistle on him at Prime Minister's Question Time—who certainly was not fit to run it. It was subsequently sold to Mr. Maxwell, 15 years after the Department of Trade and Industry certified him as not being a fit person to take over a public company. In those circumstances, it is not acceptable for the Secretary of State to take the stance of lecturing City institutions and bankers about the moral position—which I support—while denying the moral pressure that is on the Government for having acceded to the sale.
At the time of the sale, I was told that pension rights would be secured because pensioners would continue to be members of the British Airways pension fund. Later, they were offered inducements and sweeteners to transfer to the Maxwell pension fund, which they were assured—I have the notice here—was a better fund to which British Airways was making a transitional contribution.

Mr. David Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it was a condition of employment with British International Helicopters that pensions be transferred to the Maxwell pension fund? I met two people yesterday who retained partial pension rights in British Airways' pension fund because, they told me, they did not trust Maxwell, but from then on they had to be members of what turned out to be Mirror Group Newspapers. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, at the time of the Maxwell bid, the bid of the management of British International Helicopters was rejected? Presumably, the Government had a considerable hand in its rejection. Those are two extra reasons why many hon. Members who represent British International Helicopters staff, past and present, feel that there is a special case to be made.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He offers a degree of all-party solidarity to the point that I am making. The terms on which employees could retain their British Airways pension rights were disadvantageous. There was little incentive for anybody to retain those rights, and thereafter they all switched to the Mirror group in circumstances that offered them no real choice. The situation, therefore, is different from that of other companies.
We have never really got to the bottom of who paid what. I wrote to British Airways this year and received a reply from Lord King, who is adept at writing letters that


tell one something but not enough. He pointed out that the company that bought British International Helicopters paid more than £12 million—less than the in-house bid. He neglected to say that British Airways subsequently made a payment of £9.5 million to transfer contributions to the pension fund. It is extremely difficult to determine whether Mr. Maxwell's offer was a better net offer to the taxpayer than the in-house offer. Perhaps we shall never know. It is the firm view of the current management of British International Helicopters
that at the time of the sale the British Airways Board consulted the then Secretary of State for Transport, John Moore, about the provisional sale agreement with the company owned jointly by the Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail and Robert Maxwell. He saw no objection to it and the sale was completed.
That shows that, although the Government may not have authorised it, they raised no objections. I repeat what the Secretary of State said yesterday:
the warning was made in public for all to see and those who dealt with Maxwell did so potentially knowingly."—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 26.]
That includes the Government, and they have a moral obligation.
The Secretary of State said earlier that he was treating pensioners as part of the Mirror group pension fund. The Mirror group has thrown them out of the pension fund unilaterally, having kicked out the trustee some time previously. They are not part of the Mirror group pension fund but are standing on their own. In those circumstances, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that the position of British International Helicopters is different from that of any other company. If anyone is entitled to full compensation, its employees are. All those who trusted the City, the banks and the regulatory regime have every reason to believe that they should get not only a short-term rescue package that eases their immediate problems but a full-scale rescue package to which all those who have benefited from Maxwell in the past make a full and positive contribution.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Many right hon. Members hope to speak. Short speeches will enable hon. Members to catch my eye; lengthy interventions do not help.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for asking me to speak for the first time in this debate, in which I have a constituency interest.
My immediate predecessor as Member for Hertfordshire, North was Sir Ian Stewart, who came to the House in 1974. He was an expert in economic affairs and finance and was known as a numismatist—an expert on coinage. He started as PPS to Sir Geoffrey Howe, became a Treasury Minister and subsequently was Minister for the Armed Forces and Northern Ireland security Minister. I know that all hon. Members will be sad that he had to retire through ill-health. In the constituency, he is remembered for his vigorous efforts on behalf of his constituents. His immediate predecessor was Shirley Williams who is remembered as a hard-working

constituency Member of Parliament, although she did not always attend events on time. Of course, she also had a notable ministerial career, so I have a lot to live up to.
North Hertfordshire covers the towns of Royston, Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin and three ancient market towns. Letchworth was the first garden city, set up by Ebenezer Howard in 1903. It has recently reached the size originally intended for it—30,000 people—and is a city concept that has been followed the world over. It has many imitators as far away as Japan.
Because of the time restriction, I shall not mention all the interests in north Hertfordshire in the traditional way. We want to protect the local environment, we want roads but we do not want them to spoil the villages and, in addition, we have lost many defence jobs. North Hertfordshire is presently applying for EC periphera funding to ease the change to employment in other industries, which should be successful.
The issue that has dominated my post bag since I arrived in the House has been that of the Maxwell pensioners. BDC Technical Services Ltd. of Baldock is a member of the AGB pension fund, and there has been considerable anxiety and distress among many of my constituents. I give two examples. I quote from a letter by a 63-year-old man who recently retired because of heart disease. He wrote:
I am now informed that my pension will not be paid after June 1992. I always assumed that the pension scheme was as safe as the Bank of England. I am very concerned about my future.
I also received a letter from a 78-year-old woman, who wrote:
My pension payment is £59 per month, a relatively small amount, but quite important to me as apart from my old age pension, it is my only other income.
Therefore, when I heard that there was an all-party group of hon. Members fighting on behalf of the Maxwell pensioners, the first thing that I did was join it. The words that we heard tonight from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) were exactly those that he used at the first meeting of the group and on which we all agreed and which, I believe, have had a powerful effect on the Government.
When I explained to the Maxwell pensioners in north Hertfordshire what was proposed by the all-party group, they were more than satisfied with the fight being put up on their behalf. They were here yesterday to lobby, and I spoke to them shortly after the statement. They were relieved and content that the payments were to be continued with the life-belt funding for which we had argued.
I believe that the spectacle of major banks holding on to securities stolen from the pension funds is disgraceful. They should give back the assets. As a lawyer, I appreciate that there might be nice legal arguments to be employed by the banks. It might be that the argument that the banks' licences should be withdrawn is a complete non-starter because there are legal arguments that can be employed by the banks.
However, the case that must be made is the moral one. A second-hand shop that buys stolen goods expects to give them back if it is later discovered that they were stolen. For major banks—for example, National Westminster—to refuse to return the securities is a disgrace, and it is right that moral pressure should be applied. Legal pressure would possibly not work, but I am sure that the moral pressures that the House can bring to bear have every


chance of success. That is why I welcomed the Government's statement. It seemed that what was being said was that the drip-feed funding would enable pensioners to have peace of mind while the institutions were approached seriously and to be made to meet their responsibilities.
With regard to the deliberations of the Goode committee, there are three aspects that I hope will be considered. It will take a year for a major aspect of law such as this to be considered because the complexities—and I am a lawyer—seem to be marked. Let as first consider trust law. For years, ever since they began, occupational pension funds have been governed by the principles of trust law. The great advantage of trusts has always been their flexibility—that for generation after generation they can meet modern conditions—but what seems to have gone wrong with occupational pension funds which are self-managed is that that flexibility has been used by the employer to dominate the fund and to put himself in a position in which, if he is dishonest, he can take advantage of the trust in a way which no lawyer would condone and which now needs serious consideration.
It seems that trust law is no longer adequate for the purpose of dealing with the large occupational pension funds and that what needs to be considered is a system of regulation akin to the Companies Acts which requires regular accounts and statements to beneficiaries, the possibility of annual pensioners' meetings and penalties for non-compliance. The type of regulation required is so wide-ranging—one has only to think of what the Companies Acts requires—that it will take at least a year to put together a proper system.
Every share certificate or document of title in respect of a pension fund asset should have it clearly marked on the document, and the register of shareholdings kept at Companies house should be annotated to that effect. There are numerous registers in the legal world including the land registry and many others, all of which are capable of having such an annotation system imposed on them. It has worked extremely well with the class F land charge which applies in matrimonial proceedings and protects wives in respect of houses. There is no reason why the same principle in this aspect of law should not be applied to ensure that shareholdings are protected equally.
Another matter that I hope will be considered is a permanent compensation scheme to help the victims of pension fraud with reference to occupational pensions. It should be funded by a levy across the pensions industry. It could start in the way outlined yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and could become a settled part of a new pensions Act, giving peace of mind to occupational pensioners.
I believe in occupational pensions and in the remarkable change which they have wrought in British society in the past 20 or 30 years. Pensioners as a group are now the fastest rising income group in society, largely due to the confidence they have had in occupational pensions and, of course, in the private schemes which have already been mentioned. It is absolutely right that they should have a copper-bottomed guarantee that their pensions are safe so that the hope of my constituents is met by pensions being as safe as the Bank of England.

Ms. Janet Anderson: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on an excellent maiden speech. His experience on the soap box at Speakers' corner will obviously stand him in good stead in his future career in the House.
I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech as the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, a constituency which embraces five proud, separate and independent towns—Darwen, Haslingden, Rawtenstall, Bacup and Whitworth—and which has previously been represented by the late Tony Greenwood—later Lord Greenwood of Rossendale—and Mike Noble, both of whom are still remembered with great affection by many of their former constituents.
I am also fortunate to have the honour to represent a constituency which must rank among those with the greatest areas of natural beauty. When I am able to enjoy the rare opportunities for recreation which hon. Members have with their families, walking along the Rossendale way, through Sunnyhurst woods to Darwen tower, or across the west Pennine moors, stopping when we can for refreshment at the Strawbury Duck in Entwistle, or to watch the Britannia Coconutters at Rawtenstall station on the recently reopened east Lancashire line, I count myself very lucky indeed.
It was, therefore, appropriate that my predecessor should have served in the previous Government as Minister for the Countryside and that he should have represented a truly northern constituency. The recently knighted former hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, David Trippier, will surely be remembered as the Mr. Green and the Mr. North of the Conservative Benches. Not only was he one of few Conservative Members to have been born north of Watford, but he displayed a real understanding of the needs of the northern region. I take this opportunity of congratulating Sir David on his newly acquired status, and I wish him well in his chosen new career.
It is also apt that I should have the opportunity to speak in a debate on the protection of pensioners and their rights. Almost one in five of my constituents are of pensionable age. The majority of them have toiled for years in the shoe factories and the textile mills, often for meagre wages. During the past 13 years, too many of them have lost their jobs, time and again, yet they have struggled to retrain, to bounce back and to do their best for their families. It has come as a great shock to some of them to find that years of contributions to pension funds have left them with little.
We are here tonight to talk about the plight of the Maxwell pensioners, and I will come to that as there are many of them in my constituency. However, I must tell the House that a similar plight has befallen my constituents who worked in shoe and textile factories which have gone to the wall and who have then found that their pensions are no longer secure. It is essential that the Government introduce measures to give greater protection to all members of occupational pension schemes.
One example illustrates the problem clearly. One of my constituents is a current pensioner of AGB Research, a company that has already been mentioned in the debate. It was one of many companies privately owned by Robert Maxwell. My constituent worked from 1925 until 1972 for the Newton Chambers group of companies. A mandatory


condition of his employment was the joining of the company's pension scheme to which he contributed for no fewer than 47 years.
At present, he has a pension of £1,157 a year from the Maxwell-owned Headington group pension, formerly Pergamon. Through a series of takeovers, the Newton Chambers pension fund finally landed in the hands of the Maxwell group. My constituent has now been informed that his pension fund is being wound up.
My constituent is 83 years old and his wife is 73. His current works pension helps to pay his poll tax liability, and his electricity, gas and water bills—charges which, as the House is only too well aware, continue their relentless increase. If my constituent loses his pension, he will not only have difficulty in meeting those bills, but he and his wife will also have to sell their small car, which is essential at their age for shopping and local journeys.
I cannot help wondering whether, as Mrs. Maxwell languishes in her French chateau and the younger Maxwells continue to enjoy their apparently opulent lifestyle, they ever give a thought to my constituent who, any day now, may no longer be able to depend on the little extra which enables him and his wife to do their shopping, to visit the doctor, to see family and friends with reasonable ease, and to maintain dignity and independence.
Of course, my constituent is not alone in his plight; thousands are similarly affected. The Government have a moral responsibility to all those whose pensions have been stolen by an unscrupulous employer. The reason why the Government should accept that they have that responsibility is that the money, the deferred earnings of ordinary working people, was taken from them by virtue of a bad law. A number of guilty parties are involved—the Government, the banks and the regulators—but the one group who are entirely innocent are the pensioners.
The problem is one of loose law. Pension funds are covered only in part by the Financial Services Act 1986; they are mainly covered by trust law. Under that, regulation is looser and the position of trustees under the law is unclear. Both the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation and the Securities and Investments Board warned the Department of Trade and Industry on a number of occasions of the problems that would arise because of the discrepancy between trust law and the Financial Services Act. Indeed, the Hayton report, commissioned and published by IMRO and the SIB, made that point.
We must ask why the Department did not heed the warnings. In the short term, we need proper compensation for the pensioners whose pensions have been stopped or reduced. The Government conceded the principle of compensation for the Barlow Clowes victims. Those investors had at least made a conscious decision to make a financial risk investment. The pensioners whom we are considering tonight believed that they were taking no risk and that their futures were secure. Moreover, for many of them, contributions to the pension scheme were a mandatory condition of their employment. They had no choice.
There must be a considerable extension of the rights of pensioners in all occupational pension schemes. They must have information about their pensions, such as where they

are being invested and their on-going values. The Government must guarantee that no pensioner will suffer as a result of this fraud.
An urgent review of the legislation is essential. Pensioners must be treated as preferential creditors of pension funds, increasing their protection and their right to compensation. The review must include a statutory compensation scheme. The discrepancy between trust law and the Financial Services Act must be resolved and the law must ensure the independence of trustees from employers.
This is a sad and sorry episode out of which none of the parties—the Government, the banks or the regulators—emerges with credit. They should all accept their responsibilities now, and they should do so with good grace.

Mr. David Shaw: We have just heard two excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on his maiden speech, which displayed considerable knowledge about his constituents and their problems, especially in relation to the Maxwell affair. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) on her maiden speech. I predict early promotion for her to the Opposition Front Bench as I noted that the whole House enjoyed listening to her. I also believe that the whole House enjoyed listening to her fulsome and appropriate comments about her predecessor, who was much loved by all hon. Members, especially Conservative Members. David Trippier co-ordinated the Royal Marines group of Members in the House as well as carrying out extensive ministerial duties on environment issues. He also took a strong interest in small businesses. I am delighted that the Queen has made him a knight of the realm.
The debate is about the Government measures that were announced yesterday to protect the Maxwell pensioners and about other issues. Those measures were right and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has done well in extracting help for the Maxwell pensioners from the Treasury at a time when there are many competing demands on the social security expenditure budget.
Those Government measures should meet the immediate needs of the 5,000 Maxwell Communication Corporation works pensioners who face reduced pensions from this month and the 240 people in the Headington pension plan whose pensions have been stopped.
The measures are a welcome start while the recovery of the money takes place with a view to ensuring that the pension funds are fully, or almost fully, restored to what they were. That is why the implementation by the Government of section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990 and the setting up of a recovery unit in the Department of Social Security are most helpful. Those actions should result in much of the money being recovered.
This tragedy, which has brought misery to 32,000 people, is a disgrace. It is a disgrace which reflects very badly on the regulator, the banks and the financial institutions that had dealings with Mr. Maxwell. Yes, Mr. Maxwell may have committed the frauds, but the banks, financial institutions and bad regulation made it possible for him to do so.


Regretfully, I must say that IMRO is first in line. I say "regretfully" because I believe that the IMRO representatives who appeared before the Select Committee were honest and well meaning. I do not believe, however, that they and their colleagues had the necessary skills and support to deal with the problems that they faced. There were failures in authorisation on the part of IMRO: neither Bishopsgate Investment Management nor LBI should have been authorised. The implications of the Liechtenstein connection were not understood by IMRO.
IMRO should have realised, first, that no recovery of money can occur if fraud takes place in a Liechtenstein operation; secondly, that no up-to-date financial information will ever be available for a Liechtenstein-controlled operation; and, thirdly, that Mr. Maxwell—who was in absolute control—was likely to trade fraudulently in the end, because honest United Kingdom businesses do not need to operate from Liechtenstein. There was obviously bad regulation by IMRO of the two Maxwell companies. Accounting weaknesses were found; there was no adequate separation of duties within the companies; Maxwell controlled absolutely everything, and IMRO staff were too junior and too inexperienced to handle a man like Maxwell.
I find it strange that, even as I speak, at least £6 billion of United Kingdom investors' money is still controlled from Liechtenstein. GT Fund Management Group, a United Kingdom company, was taken over by the Bank of Liechtenstein in 1991, and IMRO is its regulator. That is a disaster waiting to happen. Who will pay up when the collapse occurs, as it surely will one day? The City regulators seem afraid to act, because the bank is controlled by the Prince of Liechtenstein. What does he know about fund management that Robert Maxwell did not know?
It is, however, the banks, in their many different roles, that are to blame for most of the losses incurred by the pension funds. Those banks range from the simple London clearing bank to some of the most sophisticated investment banks in the world. The position is not straightforward; what is clear and simple is the fact that they all failed to act properly, either because of incompetence, weak accounting and weak internal control systems or because of greed, recklessness or even criminal intent—I believe that that applies to at least one case.
In my view, the lending banks were negligent or reckless. They did not ask for consolidated accounts; it seems that they did not even ask for accounts of the entity to which they were lending. They did not check the gearing—the debt-to-equity ratio—of Mr. Maxwell's empire, or the cash flow of the group or of individual companies. Warnings in the media went unheeded by the bankers. On 5 November 1988, for instance, the Financial Times Lex column commented:
Again the need to degear now makes Mr. Maxwell something of a forced seller.
He was indeed a forced seller, but a forced seller of the pensioners' assets rather than his own.
The investment banks that dealt in MCC shares have a heavy responsibility for the losses that were incurred. Their option arrangements were—if not illegal—devious. Moreover, MCC share purchases through Liechtenstein were clearly designed to avoid City rules and Companies Act disclosures. When one of the smartest investment banks in the world says that it did not know that Mr. Maxwell was behind the Liechtenstein purchases of MCC

shares, the position is unbelievable. If an investment hank is as stupid as that, it is not fit to be in business and its banking licence should be withdrawn.
At least one investment banker in New York knew enough to be suspicious. He should have refused to carry out the share transactions; instead, he asked Mr. Maxwell the simplest of questions, and Mr. Maxwell told that sophisticated investment banker the simplest of lies.
The MCC share transactions carried out by that banker were designed to circumvent the voluntary code under which the City operates. There is no point in self-regulation if investment bankers can get away with hundreds of millions of pounds in shady deals without so much as a fine from the body that is responsible for their regulation. The Bank of England must show that it is prepared to withdraw banking licences; the stock exchange must show that it is prepared to withdraw authorisation to deal.
If the Bank of England and the stock exchange have neither the teeth nor the inclination to regulate the banks in regard to the Maxwell affair—given that the banks have so blatantly disregarded the principles behind the stock exchange's rules and regulations, and company law—we must all ask what is the point of self-regulation. So far, the Maxwell affair has shown it to be a fraudster's paradise, in which only the little man loses.
If the Bank of England and the stock exchange cannot police the United States investment banks, I hope that Members of Parliament will take the Maxwell pensioners' case to our friends in the United States Congress, as well as those in the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. They, at least, can police the United States investment banks, and they have the teeth and the inclination to do it.
What of the custodian banks? They pride themselves on looking after mutual funds and pension fund assets. Some £38 million of Maxwell pensioners' investments were passed by the Bank of America to Credit Suisse for use by the Maxwell family in transactions not authorised by the full trustees of the pension funds. I hope that those banks will speedily arrange to replace the lost investments. Those banks must realise that their credibility as custodians and lending institutions is being called into question by Members of Parliament and the public. That will damage their future business in this country and abroad.
What of the fund management companies which lent shares, often registered with pension fund ownership marked clearly on the share certificates, back to Mr. Maxwell on the signature of Kevin Maxwell? About £38.5 million and £11.5 million respectively were removed from Capel Cure Myers and Invesco MIM fund management by complex stock lending fiddles involving the Maxwells, and again without the authorisation or knowledge of the pension fund trustees. Those investment houses must make good that shortfall, and soon. We should make it clear that those banks and investment institutions that hold back until the matter goes to court will not be popular, and I hope that that is an understatement.
I wish to make two brief points about Liechtenstein and the other tax havens. How can the Government go on allowing tax havens such as Liechtenstein to help in robbing our citizens? In the past 10 years, at least nine Department of Trade and Industry investigations have found fraud or wrongdoing and have named Switzerland or Liechtenstein. When will the Government act to prevent that from happening again? The Treasury and the


Department of Trade and Industry must surely be at risk of being accused of negligence if they do not take action to protect our citizens from Liechtenstein and other tax havens which are robbing many of our citizens.
I have been told by the DTI that the Financial Services Act 1986 powers to trace and recover assets cannot be used in Liechtenstein or even outside the United Kingdom. That is not good enough. We must have changes to make sure that we have the powers to do so.
The motion implies that the Government are to blame. That is clearly wrong. So far, there is no evidence to suggest that the DTI wrongly licensed LBI in 1988, although, of course, there is an argument that the legislation that allowed LBI to be registered was inadequate, but that legislation was supported by three Labour Governments. If anyone is to blame, it is a number of close Labour party friends who were responsible for pensioners' money. Indeed, one man in the House of Lords is sitting on £0.5 million of pensioners' assets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is out of order to criticise a Member of the House of Lords.

Mr. Shaw: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I withdraw any comment about the member of the House of Lords, other than the fact that I hope that any man who benefited to the tune of £0.5 million from LBI would want to repay that money as soon as possible.
I am disappointed also to know that, apparently, the Serious Fraud Office may yet have to go through another 12 months' work before charges might be brought. I hope that Ministers will ensure that the Serious Fraud Office has every possible support to bring early charges. We must find a better way of bringing to justice people who have taken pensioners' money by criminal acts.
Although responsibility for the Maxwell affair must rest with the financial institutions, the Government have a role. They must protect the small man against the big institutions which, in this case, acted out of self-interest and not their real customers' interest. Ultimately, the Government must ensure that no Maxwell pensioner loses his home or goes hungry through the failings of our financial institutions.

Mr. Ron Leighton: We have been privileged to hear remarkable maiden speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) and by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). I am sure that the House will want to hear from them again very soon.
Before I came to the House, I worked as a printer on the Maxwell publications, although that was before Maxwell owned them. As a result, I know a large number of Maxwell pensioners. I worked with them, and I know them to be honest, decent, responsible and prudent people who always paid in for their pensions. They regarded their pensions as their most important and valuable asset, perhaps after their house—the foundation of their lives in retirement. They put their trust in the pensions industry and the financial houses. After all, the financial houses were all led by people who were Sirs or Lords, people who were always mentioned in the honours list. The employees thought that they lived in a law-governed society. All the

firms were licensed by the Government and therefore they thought that their pensions were as safe as the Bank of England.
Then came along Mr. Maxwell. He took over companies such as the Mirror Group and others. There was immediate fear and unease among members of pension schemes. I received a deputation in the House from the Daily Mirror led by Mr. Joe Lynch, who told me that Maxwell was taking over the Daily Mirror only to get his hands on the pension fund. He told me that if Mr. Maxwell could get the pension fund, which was worth about £500 million, he would get the Daily Mirror for nothing. I was told by the workers in that firm that that was what it was all about.
The members of the deputation asked me what protection they had in law. I am not an expert in the law but I looked into the matter. It seemed to me that they had precious little protection. In Britain the protection of the law for pension funds is inadequate.
I arranged a meeting for the Daily Mirror employees with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) who at that time was Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on the subject. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the changes that a Labour Government would need to make. Unfortunately, the Labour Government was not to be.
The first thing that Maxwell did when he went into the Mirror Group was to arrange a pensions holiday. He stopped paying any money into the pension fund. He was interested only in taking money out. Of course, he then took over many other firms and their pension funds and systematically robbed them. Can the House imagine and understand the pain, anguish, suffering and misery of the law-abiding citizens who had done everything right, acted prudently and religiously paid in their moneys only to find that their greatest asset, rightfully theirs, the foundation of their future life, had been stolen? They were robbed not by a burglar with a mask but by the chairmen of companies and City gents. The Maxwell pensioners came to me and asked how it was possible in this country of ours that such a thing could happen under the law and under the rules of the City.
We in the House must start asking ourselves a few questions about banks. I believe that the banks are serving us badly. They are letting us down. We all used to believe that the banks gave us great benefits in terms of the balance of payments. We believed that we gained great benefit from the City and its invisible exports. We were all in awe of the City. We are no longer. The City and its short-termism is perhaps the major cause of our problems. It makes one appalling mistake after another with our money.
For example, when the Reichmann brothers got off the aeroplane, the banks immediately offered them bundles and bundles of used fivers and tenners. Now the firm has gone bust. The same thing happened with Maxwell. A Department of Trade and Industry report said that he was not a fit man to run a company. Yet the banks of this country fell over themselves to give him large loans. Did not they understand what sort of man they were dealing with? Did they know what day of the week it was?
The banks took the pension assets as collateral. Were they naive? Were they born yesterday? Did the banks, the people whom we have always been told to look up to, have the slightest clue what they were doing? They got it madly wrong. If the banks got it madly wrong, it is down to them.


It is their fault. They are now in possession of stolen property. They have the pension assets which were stolen. What do other people do when they have stolen property? If you or I had stolen property, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what would we have to do? We must say that Parliament expects the banks to hand back that stolen property. Yesterday, both Opposition and Conservative Members and in particular the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made that point.
The second matter that my old workmates, the Maxwell pensioners, drew to my attention was that the Maxwell empire appears to be bust, as it has no money to pay them. In that case, they ask, how can the Maxwell family have such a lavish, millionaire lifestyle? Someone said that the Maxwell brothers are allowed £1,600 per week—I had thought that it was £1,500. We have heard about their large and expensive houses. I have been asked how that is possible or justifiable if there is no money. I do not know. Perhaps we shall find out this evening.
Maxwell was not alone—it was not possible for one man to commit such crimes—but was aided and abetted by many professional people in the City and elsewhere. What about the law? I have been asked whether it is legal to do that sort of thing. What will happen to all those people who aided and abetted him? Why have there been no prosecutions and no convictions? Why have all the crooks and criminals so far gone scot-free?
The Maxwell brothers did not answer the questions when they were brought before the Select Committee. Their expensive lawyers said that they did not answer because they were liable to prosecution, but where are the prosecutions? There have not been any. Why not? If there are not to be any, the brothers should be brought back before the Select Committee and the House so that we can deal with them.
The last question that my old workmates asked me concerns the regulatory structure. They think that they live in a law-governed society. They asked how it could happen. We have laws and regulatory authorities, but it is clear that those authorities have proved totally inadequate.
The Department of Trade and Industry issued a licence, under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958, to London and Bishopsgate Investments' management—a Maxwell company—on 26 April 1988. It is true that Robert Maxwell was not originally a director, but Kevin Maxwell was and everybody knew it. Could the DTI not have put two and two together? Is that asking too much? Did it not understand that Kevin Maxwell did everything that his father told him and was not an independent person? Why did the DTI not look into a company in which Kevin Maxwell was a director? Three days later, on 29 April, IMRO, gave its approval and shortly after Robert Maxwell lent his name to the company.
The sole purpose of London and Bishopsgate Investments and its sister company was to divert £500 million of pension money into untouchable Liechtenstein accounts—to rob the pension funds of their money.
What is the truth that the House must cope with and explain to the pensioners? The DTI and IMRO granted a licence to plunder and pillage the pension funds of thousands of innocent people. The authorities were culpable and negligent and the pensioners were victims not only of fraud but of the official regulatory bodies which failed to protect them. The analogy has been made with Barlow Clowes. It was explained in that case that the

authorities were negligent, and the Government put up £160 million to rescue them, although investors in that company knowingly invested offshore for a higher dividend and were taking a risk. The pensioners in the Maxwell empire took no risks. They were honourable and innocent. They were the misused victims of negligence and crime. Whoever should pay, it should not be the pensioners.
After many months, the Government—at long last, tardily, reluctantly, as a result of the pressure of the lobby that we saw yesterday and this debate—have accepted some responsibility. They have realised that they cannot pass by on the other side, but their promise of £2.5 million is inadequate. The fears and the worries of the pensioners whom I met yesterday have not been assuaged. The Government should underwrite the pensions. They should ensure that pensioners get 100 per cent. of that to which they are entitled. However, this should not be achieved solely through the use of taxpayers' money. They should get the cash from the Maxwell companies, from the banks and from the £300 billion-rich pension industry, all of which ought to pick up the tab. There should be some convictions. People should be punished for these crimes, which were committed by others besides Maxwell. What the Government have done so far is inadequate.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I shall be brief because I know that others wish to contribute to the debate, but I must begin by adding to the congratulations on the two maiden speeches, which were first class both in brevity, bearing in mind the pressure of the debate, and in substance. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) refer to his predecessor, Sir Ian Stewart, as he was a good friend of mine. As my hon. Friend said, he has a good reputation to maintain.
We are debating an exceptional fraud. Maxwell appeared as a character larger than life to all who knew him and to all who knew of him. In death he has turned out to be a criminal of quite staggering proportions, a man without scruple, determined to the end to get his own way whatever the cost to anyone else.
The members of his family still have the opportunity to recover something of their shattered reputation by co-operating with the investigation to recover the stolen assets of these pension funds. They should do so now. The country has had enough of their blocking tactics, and so has Parliament. As many hon. Members have said in this debate tonight, we must also take into account the advisers to the Maxwells and the many others who were involved and should be assisting in the restitution of these funds, instead of keeping their heads down and avoiding the difficulties that they should face.
I have a number of Maxwell pensioners in my constituency and I speak for them today, but I have a broader interest in the good standing of all company pension funds and the good name of the City of London, where I worked in the personnel field for many years. Employers usually have no option but to contribute to their company funds and all of us would regard a company's contributions to its employees' pension funds as part of a total earnings package, part of the contract of employment. That is exactly what it is.


No reasonable person can possibly disagree with the contention that the Maxwell pensioners are the innocent victims of a massive fraud and if ever individuals deserved to have a wrong fully righted, it is these men and women. Righting of the wrong must involve several sources—all have a part to play.
I welcome the Government's initiative. It is essential, it is timely and it deals with the immediate difficulties. Yesterday my right hon. Friend gave the news to the House in the expectation that—he confirmed this today—it would meet the immediate needs of all pensioners. If it does not meet that expectation, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that many hon. Members from both sides of the House will ask for more. As of now, I am satisfied with the action as a first step.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said yesterday that the amount provided was derisory, but I cannot agree with that. He was considering the sum against the total figure, not against the immediate needs that it is designed to meet. The Secretary of State has confirmed today, in a key phrase, that the objective of the immediate rescue package is that the funds should he able to resume or maintain payment to their members.
I also welcome the decision to set up a special unit. However, will the number and quality of people working in that unit be adequate? Will they have the necessary clout to give Government weight to solving and investigating the problems? They will be dealing with many heavyweight people, who will not readily forward the information that they should. Therefore, it is important that the unit has strong personnel.
I agree with the point that has been made many times in the debate that those banks—we must not include all banks in such strictures—that lent to Maxwell against the assets of his pension funds have a clear moral, as well as a legal, obligation. Further to the moral obligation, I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) who focused on the business standing of those banks. Surely good banking judgment is about making sure that the assets against which one lends are sound. In the Maxwell case, the assets have been found not only to be unsound, but stolen. Therefore, the banks involved remain as shining examples of bad bankers to all the world. It is in those banks' interests to return the funds as rapidly as possible. We look to them to take that action.
I believe that it is absolutely proper for the Secretary of State to set up a fund to accept contributions to help deal with the problem of the pensioners. I look to the pension industry, which has no insurance system at this stage, to give serious consideration to whether it should ensure its future standing and the sense of security of members of pension funds all over Britain by making some contribution to meet the shortfall.
Certainly, the review of pension schemes is essential. I do not disagree with the time limit of a year. We always knew that, whenever such a review took place, it would be complicated and would require a great amount of consultation. However, the review should take no longer than a year. I welcome the statement of the Secretary of State today that he will act upon some of the urgent recommendations that may be part of the review before the end of that year.
We live in a capitalist society. The takeover of companies always causes major worries for their employees. The Maxwell example has shown that a takeover can put the soundest of pension schemes at extreme risk. Therefore, the whole business of takeovers, when linked to that type of example, is put into a bad light. So the City as a whole—the regulatory bodies, the Bank of England, the banks involved and the pensions industry—has a strong moral obligation as well as self-interest to see the Maxwell pensioners right in the long term.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the debate, and I promise not to exceed the time allocated for speeches. As a member of the Select Committee on Social Security in the last Parliament, I shall make only a few points and not go over those made by other hon. Members. If the House is seized of the matters which deserve urgent action, some early decisions must be taken.
I congratulate the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench, because without the motion the Government would not have provided time to debate this and interrelated issues. The Government should have agreed some time ago, because of the seriousness of the matter, to provide time for a wide-ranging debate. It should not have been left to the Opposition to find time for what must be inadequate consideration of this important matter.
The Secretary of State paid credit yesterday and today to the work of the Select Committee. I do not say that just because I was a member of it. Members of the Committee from both sides agreed when we discussed the case that our recommendations would be driven by the evidence that we collated, and by no other means. So our recommendations present the Government with an ideal method of dealing with the issue in the short and long term.
The Government business managers should give a clear assurance at business questions this week that time will be provided before the summer recess to debate the Select Committee's report. It contains five pages of recommendations, yet the Secretary of State has to date accepted only one recommendation. If he is really serious about doing something over the scandal, for the pensions industry and for the future security of pensioners, he will ensure that the House has ample opportunity to debate those five pages of recommendations.
Both Front Benches must give urgent consideration to the fact that the Select Committee on Social Security will not be re-established before the summer recess. Only by reconstituting it will there be adequate opportunity to debate all the issues. If its re-establishment is delayed until the autumn, it will take until March of next year before the Committee continues to deal with the issues that were before it prior to the general election.
That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the business managers on both sides must explain why the appropriate orders for the establishment of the Select Committee have not been laid before the House. It is not good enough to say that it must wait until after the shadow Cabinet election or other matters relating to Opposition business have been settled. The work of the Select Committee is too important to be left to the indecision of business managers. I hope that, without delay, orders will be placed before the House to enable the Committee to start its work before the summer recess.

Mr. David Shaw: rose—

Mr. McCartney: I will not give way because I have only a few minutes in which to speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to speak on the subject in the Select Committee before the summer recess.
I have a suggestion for the Government if they think that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was churlish in his remarks about their lifebelt proposals. There was almost unanimous support from both sides of the House for the principle set out in the Minister's statement. I am not prepared to say something in private to the Select Committee and then stand on the Back Benches in public and say something different. The concepts contained in the Minister's statement yesterday were the very concepts that were unanimously agreed by the Select Committee. I stand by that.
However, doubt is being expressed both inside and outside the House about the adequacy of the proposals. So far, the debate has shown good will to the Select Committee and the all-party group, and I suggest that arrangements are made for regular contact between both Front Benches and the all-party group to take cognisance of whether it will be necessary at some stage to provide further resources. The Minister could then have no objection to the involvement of the Opposition Front Bench in considering the adequacy of the proposals put forward yesterday.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Government's offer yesterday was regarded as derisory because it amounted to little more than the loan of "half a Gazza" when Maxwell pensioners' demands were for the whole of the Lazio team? Many of the Maxwell pensioners see the only prospect of getting those funds through the strategy set down in the early-day motion that I submitted today, which asks the Government
to use its full powers of sequestration against the banks, investment institutions, individuals and foreign-based companies to recover all the monies stolen from the Maxwell pensioners".
If the Government would not hesitate to do so against the miners in 1984, they should not hesitate to do so against the bankers today.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. That is why I have been arguing that the House should make time to debate the consequences of the Select Committee report and should make regulations to allow that Committee's work to continue. Before the general election we were considering how we could provide for the return of the assets and deal with the difficulties of international law in returning assets from Liechtenstein and other places. The Select Committee must be allowed to continue that work.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was being rather kind, to say the least, to those who came before the Select Committee for IMRO. In reality, they were totally inadequate for the job that they were trying to perform. Moreover, they were inexperienced in the role and work of the City. What was wrong was the self-regulatory basis of IMRO, which was ill-prepared and unprepared to take action at the outset in respect of the Maxwell companies. Had they taken that action, many of the problems that have arisen as a result of the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds of assets would not have arisen.
The Government should, at an early stage, make it clear what Professor Goode has been asked to do in respect of self-regulation. Will his committee look at the wider aspect of the role of IMRO and at whether, under the new arrangements for his committee, the Occupational Pensions Board is adequate to cope with the increasing demands in that growing sector of financial institutions in the City?

Mr. John Gunnell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the IMRO regulations provide for directors of IMRO companies to supply a quarterly return, which they must sign, saying that they know of no failure under the regulations and nothing that could give rise to or constitute a complaint from any customer? As all the directors of IMRO companies, of which I am one, must sign such a document, and as it is filled in every quarter, is it not clear that all the directors of IMRO companies have been signing such documents apparently unaware of the theft from the funds? Does not that mean that self-regulation has failed dismally and that those company directors have been prepared to sign, knowingly or unknowingly? May I show a Christmas card that Robert Maxwell—

Madam Speaker: Order. Let me try to help the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). An intervention must be precise, particularly at this time of the evening when we are waiting for the wind-up speeches.

Mr. Gunnell: My apologies, Madam Speaker, but I thought that the card was a precise example of hypocrisy on a major scale.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) had me there, and I shall keep a close eye on him in future debates. His suggestion to look at the Select Committee report and what it says about IMRO is valid.
I want a commitment from both the Labour and the Government Front-Bench teams that they will initiate, in Government time, a debate on the Social Security Committee's report and regulations and will set up a Select Committee before the summer recess.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I congratulate the two hon. Members who made excellent maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) gave a clear and precise presentation that demonstrated his barrister background. Having listened to his maiden speech, I think that his experience of Speakers' corner will come in useful, as he will not be heard in as much silence as he was today. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) gave a clear, fluent, committed speech. As many of us know, she has worked hard for many Members of Parliament and for the Labour party behind the scenes for many years. We are pleased to see her here in her own right; our party's loss is her constituents' gain.
In view of the time left, I shall briefly pick up on a number of issues raised, starting with one mentioned by the Secretary of State. He said that he was convinced that his proposals had been welcomed by a wide spectrum of opinion outside the House. Let us consider the response of some of the action groups to his comments.
The Maxwell pensioners action group said:


It's a long way short of what we want, and we shall campaign on.
The BIH pensioners action committee said:
The £2.5 million was a little like a student loan ie. giving a little to people with nothing—hoping they would be repaid in the future.
The MCC works plan said that it was
A step up the ladder, a scratch on the surface.
It is worried about the frequency with which the Secretary of State used the word "may". Therefore, to say that the proposals were greeted with overwhelming approval is a slight overstatement.
I wish to concentrate on the issue on which the Secretary of State laid stress: the special unit that he has set up in his Department, and the trust fund designed to encourage City institutions to contribute to the Maxwell pensioners' funds. He said a number of times, both yesterday and today, that the long-term problems could be solved only if assets were unfrozen and other contributions were made. He said that he was waiting to see how the institutions in the City of London reacted to their moral conscience.
I tried to help the Secretary of State this afternoon by phoning around as many financial institutions in the City as I could to find out where they stood on the issue. I am pleased to be able to help him with a number of comments from those institutions. The chairman of one of the clearing banks said:
The failure in the system is the failure to control a government-regulated company—Bishopsgate. As far as we know—no stolen shares passed through our hands—we find the suggestion of a moral obligation to pay worrying. A way has to be found to recompense the pensioners, but for us, charity begins at home.
The chairman of another clearing bank said:
We are squeaky clean on Maxwell".
When asked about whether he would contribute to the Secretary of State's fund, the chairman said:
That's going a bit far. I don't think my shareholders would appreciate that.
The National Association of Pension Funds, an organisation which represents many pension funds throughout the country, states that it has no money and does not believe that it should contribute. When asked whether it would advise pension fund members to contribute at its council meeting tomorrow, its representatives said that it did not consider that relevant. The Secretary of State must be aware that it would be ultra vires, in terms of the fiduciary principle, for many pension schemes to contribute to his pension fund.
The Secretary of State has not received a positive response from European and American banks that hold collateral linked to the Maxwell pensioners. When asked whether it would contribute, Shearson Lehman representatives said:
We entered into transactions in good faith. We intend to pursue our own position in the courts.
Most of the other banks were not willing to talk about conscience. Banque Nationale de Paris had no comment and Credit Suisse and Swiss Volksbank were unable under Swiss law to make any statement.
I spoke to people in Goldman Sachs and other banks in the United States. Those bankers consider themselves to be people of good will, but they do not consider a statement in support of the trust fund to be of any value. One of them said:

I don't know what kind of show you are running over there. Every time the Government runs into a regulatory problem they come round the City with a begging bowl.
We accept that the banks have a responsibility and we would like to see them contribute. How do the Government propose to bring alive the small conscience in the City institutions?

Mr. Lilley: rose—

Ms. Mowlam: The Secretary of State had a good session. There will be plenty of time to sum up and the right hon. Gentleman can confer with his colleague. I will not give way. The Minister can share his view with his colleague who can present it in winding up.
The hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) spoke about the future of the City of London. If the European federal bank comes to London, will it have to worry about the begging bowl every time there is a problem? I agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that we must consider that serious problem.
The Secretary of State generously acknowledged that the Select Committee and the all-party group had been crucial in helping him to reach his decision. It would have been helpful if he had said that the idea for this kind of fund had been circulating in the City for many weeks and openly discussed. As I am sure he knows from the report in yesterday's issue of The Independent, the National Westminster bank has been discussing for some time what it calls a men of good will fund—to which we shall not have to contribute—to help pensioners in great distress until the legal question about a call on shares is answered. The head of the bank's risk department has been exploring avenues for some time in trying to respond to the problem, and the National Westminster felt fairly aggrieved when the Secretary of State found out and decided to pre-empt the scheme.
The Secretary of State said several times that he wanted to put Maxwell pensioners' minds at rest and then made contradictory statements. When asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) about retrospective payments for members of the Headington pension fund, the Secretary of State said that he would have to come back to the hon. Gentleman. But in answer to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) the Secretary of State gave a 100 per cent. guarantee about all the pensioners in that scheme. That can be checked in tomorow's Hansard.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who asked about AGB pensioners, the Secretary of State gave no guarantee and no straight answer. The right hon. Gentleman's statements have not created the peace of mind that he and the Opposition are eager to welcome. In many ways, he has done the opposite. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made clear, we welcome the changes to section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990. As the Minister made clear, that will make the Maxwell pensioners unsecured creditors. We must be straight with the Maxwell pensioners and tell them that, as unsecured creditors, they will be similar to other trading partners and will receive very little, if any, money from the liquidation.
The Secretary of State was asked yesterday when he would introduce the social security changes and he said, "I shall do that at an early date." What did he mean? When he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry he could


have set up the inquiry into MGN, but we had to wait for the present Secretary of State to announce that inquiry. Understandably we have some doubt about the right hon. Gentleman's ability to act quickly on announcements.
One would have thought that the problem over the Maxwell pensioners would have stimulated the Government into responding to weaknesses in the regulatory regime. Many hon. Members have spoken about that. I hope that that issue, which relates to the Treasury, will he answered in the winding-up speech. The Government have said that they will not respond to the issue other than through the review of pension legislation. Hon. Members have spoken about IMRO, international controls and Liechtenstein. All those matters deserve an international response. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued a press release on the Treasury taking over responsibility for the Financial Services Act 1986. It said that for the time being
No changes are proposed in the way financial services are to be regulated.
We have £270 million in Liechtenstein and it would be useful if that was returned. After the events at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and following other procedures, it would be useful if the Government acknowledged that it would be helpful to have an international response. Perhaps the Minister will mention that today.
Similarly, there is a report on IMRO on the desk of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The report states that in future IMRO should move to a one wholesale and one retail regulator. That report has been on his desk for some months, but there has been no response to the weaknesses at IMRO. I hope that the Minister will accept that that report suggests changes and that it is something to which the Government could respond. That would be better than the Chancellor's statement that no action is to be taken.
The position of the Maxwell pensioners is pitiable. Although we welcome the Government's response, it is insufficient and we are worried that in the months ahead the Maxwell pensioners will suffer as a result of the Government's weakness.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): During this debate the House has spoken with one voice about the plight of the Maxwell pensioners. Nobody listening to the debate could go away unaware of the great sympathy that has been expressed by all hon. Members who have contributed and those who have tried to contribute. I hope that they will have other opportunities to express their views.
One aspect of the plight of Maxwell pensioners that has been given insufficient attention is the uncertainty involved. They are worried not just about the amount of money involved but about when and whether they will get it. For many elderly people of limited means and with an expected standard of life, that uncertainty keeps them awake at night and visits a particular sort of distress upon them. I am aware of that and it is the Government's awareness of that which led to the proposal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made yesterday and again today. In the short time available, I shall do my best to acknowledge and respond to the many contributions that have been made.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) on an outstanding maiden speech in the great tradition of the House. He spoke with warmth about his predecessor, Sir Ian Stewart, whom we all remember with gratitude and admiration. He mentioned the plight of his AGB pensioner constituents and I took that on board. They will be among those whom it is intended will benefit from this package of measures. He made some interesting points about the remit of the review. He proposed that consideration should be given to a register of assets and that perhaps a compensation scheme was needed. He and other hon. Members rightly pointed out that 12 months is probably an adequate period given that the Government will come forward sooner if more immediate measures are needed. We must remember that we are dealing with an enormous number of beneficiaries of occupational pension schemes and it is important that we get it right.
When in the past the House has looked at the problems in pensions, insurance, investments and banking, time and again we have looked at the deficiencies of past legislation and the latest incidence of collapse. What we must try to do—it is more difficult—is look forward to the next problem that might arise. We should spend more time trying to secure the horses in their stable than locking the doors of those that have already bolted. As I have said, that is difficult, but it will take the time and attention of the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) supported the amendment, for which I am grateful. He deplored the party-political stance of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who, I agree, introduced an unnecessary partisan approach.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) welcomed the review and asked, rightly, how funds could be diverted so badly. The review must consider that, and the banks and City institutions must contribute to the trust fund that has been set up.
The hon. Member for Gordon and others referred to the problem of British International Helicopters Limited scheme members. To date, all pensions have been paid in full and will be until the end of July. Money is available to pay after July, and the unit will discuss with trustees how to continue pensions in the short term.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) on an outstanding maiden speech. She spoke warmly about our colleague, Sir David Trippier, whom we miss very much, but we welcome her to the House. I was impressed by her comments about textile workers, whom I know something about. She mentioned the problems and concern of her constituents who are affected by the Maxwell collapses and called for an assessment—this is an important point—of trust law and pension law. That was considered by the professor to whom she referred, but I did not draw the same conclusions from the report as her. She spelt out the case for a statutory compensation scheme.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) spoke about Headington. It is intended that the package of £2.5 million will restore payments, including the May and June payments, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West asked. The trustees must decide how to allocate resources, but he asked whether, in assessing the


sum liable to be paid, they included an assessment for back payments of sums due. The answer is that we intend, as far as possible, that they should.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover also spoke about the problems of getting assets out of Liechtenstein. I share his frustration, but there is a limited amount that one can do to make another sovereign state disgorge assets. However, there is a prospect that, under the Basle negotiations on international banking regulation, countries that do not subscribe to international standards of banking prudence may have authorisation withdrawn for subsidiaries or branches in particular countries, so some pressure could be brought to bear in that way. He asked for a tougher line to be taken, and I am sure that that will be noted.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) asked whether the banks knew with whom they were dealing and referred to the 1971 Department of Trade and Industry report. Many of them must have known, although with the benefit of hindsight it is easy to be critical. He asked whether the Maxwells will be prosecuted. That is a matter for the Serious Fraud Office. The assets are a matter for the liquidators, who are investigating. He said that the Department of Trade and Industry should not have licensed LBI, but under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 it was extremely difficult for it to be denied approval, even for those few days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) welcomed the assurances that have been given, but said that if funds proved inadequate he and the House would be back for more. We hope that they will be adequate. I assure him that the manning of the unit will be adequate. We shall ensure that it is staffed with people who are thoroughly able to do the job. I noted what he said about pension funds and banks contributing to the-trust that has been set up.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to the report of the Select Committee on Social Security. I pay tribute to its work. Its central recommendation was that there should be a review, and that recommendation has been accepted in full. I believe that there were about 60 recommendations, six of which were implemented immediately. It is the Government's intention to respond formally to the Select Committee by the end of this month. The hon. Gentleman criticised IMRO and asked whether it was competent, but that is a matter for SIB.
Finally, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) did not get much change out of the City, which is hardly surprising—it is hardly likely to say to her, "What a good idea. I'll certainly put £5 million into the kitty." These issues are very sensitive. [Interruption.] Well, it is not going to say that. I predict that we shall have a much better success rate.

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 315.

Division No. 26]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Enright, Derek


Adams, Mrs Irene
Etherington, William


Ainger, Nicholas
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Fatchett, Derek


Alton, David
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Ashton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Austin-Walker, John
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Battle, John
Foulkes, George


Bayley, Hugh
Fraser, John


Beckett, Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, Andrew F.
Galloway, George


Benton, Joe
Gapes, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Berry, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Betts, Clive
Gilbert Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyce, Jimmy
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gunnell, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hain, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hall, Mike


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hinchliffe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hoey, Kate


Cann, James
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Home Robertson, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hood, Jimmy


Clapham, Michael
Hoon, Geoff


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cox, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cummings, John
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Khabra, Piara


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Donohoe, Brian
Lewis, Terry


Dowd, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livingstone, Ken


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Loyden, Eddie






Lynne, Ms Liz
Redmond, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


McCartney, Ian
Richardson, Jo


McFall, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McKelvey, William
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roche, Ms Barbara


McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


McMaster, Gordon
Rooker, Jeff


McNamara, Kevin
Rooney, Terry


McWilliam, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Mahon, Alice
Ruddock, Joan


Mandelson, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Snape, Peter


Milburn, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morgan, Rhodri
Steinberg, Gerry


Morley, Elliot
Stevenson, George


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudie, George
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Paul
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wallace, James


O'Hara, Edward
Walley, Joan


Olner, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Parry, Robert
Watson, Mike


Patchett, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Pendry, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pike, Peter L.
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pope, Greg
Wilson, Brian


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright, Tony


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Ken Eastham.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Beggs, Roy


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bellingham, Henry


Aitken, Jonathan
Bendall, Vivian


Alexander, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amess, David
Body, Sir Richard


Ancram, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Booth, Hartley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, Andrew


Atkins, Robert
Bowis, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brandreth, Gyles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Bates, Michael
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Batiste, Spencer
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)





Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nicholas


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Dicks, Terry
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
Kilfedder, James


Duncan, Alan
King, Rt Hon Tom


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Milligan, Stephen


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James






Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spink, Dr Robert


Moss, Malcolm
Spring, Richard


Needham, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Nelson, Anthony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stephen, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Streeter, Gary


Norris, Steve
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Sweeney, Walter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sykes, John


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pawsey, James
Thomason, Roy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pickles, Eric
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tracey, Richard


Rathbone, Tim
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, John
Trend, Michael


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Trimble, David


Richards, Rod
Trotter, Neville


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robathan, Andrew
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Walden, George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Ward, John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waterson, Nigel


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wells, Bowen


Sackville, Tom
Wheeler, Sir John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Nicholas



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. David Lightbown and


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House shares a deep concern for the distress pensioners face as a result of the pillaging of pension funds by Robert Maxwell; applauds the initiative taken by the Government to provide temporary, emergency funding to help those schemes which have a particularly acute short term problem; and, while welcoming the decision to initiate a thorough review of the framework of pension scheme law, notes with approval the important part that occupational pensions continue to play in ensuring increasing prosperity among the retired population of this country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, relating to Standing Order No. 130 on Select Committees. I raise the matter because it has become clear to hon. Members on both sides—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quietly and not hold their meetings here? [Interruption.] Order. An hon. Member is on his feet.

Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for standing up for the little people in the House.

Madam Speaker: Order. They may be small people, but there is a lot of personality there.

Mr. McCartney: I am lost for words, Madam Speaker—for once.
Standing Order No. 130 relates to the setting up of Select Committees. It has become clear to hon. Members on both sides who served on Select Committees in the previous Parliament, in particular Committees whose current investigations were suspended because of the general election, that no effort has been made by the authorities of the House, through the usual channels, to bring forward appropriate measures for those Select Committees to be set up. In particular, the Social Services Select Committee has been left in limbo while people laugh all the way to Liechtenstein with people's resources from the Maxwell pension funds. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to use your good offices in the appropriate quarters to bring before the House orders for that Select Committee to be set up before the summer recess.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must seek that information from the Committee of Selection and not from the Chair.

Mr. Frank Field: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope that Front-Bench Members heard Opposition support for the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).

Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would do your best to draw to the attention of Front-Bench Members the answer which I received today to my question on the cost to public funds of members of the Department of the Clerk of the House who currently have nothing to do because the departmental Select Committees have not been set-up. The cost of the Clerks is £175,862 a month. If the departmental Select Committees are not set up until October, the cost to public funds in the Clerk's Department will, by my calculation, be more than £1 million.

Madam Speaker: I protect Back Benchers as much as I protect Officers of the House who cannot answer for themselves. I am using my good offices to see that progress


is made in setting up the Select Committees. I am sure that what I have said has been heard in all quarters of the House and especially on the two Front Benches.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not prolonging the point of order unnecessarily. Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Ross: As you are using your good offices to ensure that the Select Committees are set up, will you go further and ensure that there is a Select Committee for Northern Ireland?

Madam Speaker: I have gone as far as I intend to go this evening. We now move on to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill shall consist of twenty Members, including not fewer than twelve Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
Inevitably, this is a narrow debate. It is not about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is about the consideration of the Bill, for the motion is purely procedural. As Standing Order No. 86 is referred to in the motion, it may be helpful to give a brief outline of its main requirements.
With certain exceptions, Standing Order No. 86 requires that
the Committee of Selection shall nominate not fewer than sixteen nor more than fifty Members to serve on each standing committee for the consideration of each bill".
It requires the Committee of Selection to have regard to
the qualifications of those Members nominated and to the composition of the House".
There is a further proviso which states:
for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
There is clearly an inconsistency in the Standing Order. There cannot be a Standing Committee which reflects the composition of the House, is limited to 50 members and is made up of the Members for all constituencies in Wales. A Committee meeting all those requirements has not been constituted for some considerable time, irrespective of the party in power. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the Welsh Language Act 1967, the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Act 1983 and the Caldey Island Act 1990 all had Standing Committee membership other than as specified in Standing Order No. 86.
In turn, none of the motions to set up the membership of those Standing Committees, which were similar to the one that we are considering this evening, was opposed. I suspect that the only reason why the Standing Order has not been amended is the relative infrequency of legislation that relates exclusively to Wales.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Minister has quoted precedents to the House. When did a private Bill last become a public Bill?

Mr. Jones: We are dealing with the motion before the House. Proceedings on the Bill have gone on for a long time. I should be out of order if I strayed into considering the Bill itself. Many of us feel that the Bill has been more debated than anything else. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we confine ourselves to the procedural motion.
The Government are doing what has often been done before by tabling the motion.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is misleading the House.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will retract what he has just said and rephrase his comments.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister is inadvertently misleading the House.

Madam Speaker: Order. It is perfectly all right to use the word inadvertently.

Mr. Rogers: He is inadvertently misleading the House. The Bill has never been discussed, as it is a new Government Bill which has been introduced to replace a private Bill. The Minister is correct in saying that the issues have been discussed fairly well, but the Bill is new.

Madam Speaker: That does not seem to be a point of order for me. This is a technical motion relating to a Standing Order.

Mr. Jones: By tabling the motion, the Government are merely doing what has often been done before.
The motion will allow the Committee of Selection to nominate a Standing Committee on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill which reflects the composition of the House and ensures substantial representation by Members with Welsh constituencies. Of course, it remains for the House to decide what it will do on future occasions.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister has quoted several precedents. Will he confirm that there is an important difference between them and the situation that we face tonight? In the precedents that he quoted, a Labour Government altered the order to facilitate the position for a Conservative Opposition. Tonight, a Conservative Government are disadvantaging the Labour Opposition.

Mr. Jones: No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that that is not correct. If he refers back to all the examples from 1967 to the present, he will find that those in 1983 and 1990 were under a Conservative Government. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that none of the motions involved in setting up the Committee stages in those examples was opposed.
I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Paul Murphy: In April 1907, the then President of the Board of Education, and my direct predecessor as Member for Torfaen, Mr. Reginald McKenna, spoke in the House on behalf of the Government and in support of Standing Order No. 86, which the Government, in their arrogance, are proposing to abandon. The House believed 85 years ago—and made that belief resolute by a Division—that Welsh Members should have the same rights and privileges as their Scottish counterparts when dealing with exclusively Welsh legislation. All those years ago Members believed that that argument was right, and we do not believe that it has changed with the passage of time.
It is ironic that only last week the Scottish Grand Committee dealt with the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, as a move for a greater say by Scottish Members of Parliament in dealing with Scottish legislation.
I believe that the rule has served the test of time. The Minister said that the Standing Order has been set aside on a number of occasions. It was set aside on two occasions under a Labour Government: in June 1975, for the Welsh Development Agency Bill; and in July 1976, for the Development of Rural Wales Bill.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, the circumstances then were different. They were completely separate. The move was not challenged. The Welsh Development Agency Bill and the Development of Rural Wales Bill were supported by both sides of the House and both the bodies involved are today regarded as successful agencies by the Government. There was never any question of the Government having to bring in extra troop reinforcements from England to get the legislation through. Wales then, as now, produced more Labour Members than Members of any other party, and there was a Labour Government. Also, the proportion of Welsh Members on the Committees was different from the proportion proposed today. Today, the Government are proposing that, out of 20 members of the Committee, only 12 should be from Welsh constituencies, but in the two cases that I have quoted, 14 out of 16 were Members of Parliament, at a time when many Welsh Members were Ministers in a Labour Government. The comparison is not a good one, and the House should be looking at these matters in a different way.
The Government accept the wider membership of Committees when it suits them. Only two weeks ago, the House dealt with all stages of the Non-Domestic Rating Bill on the Floor of the House. Two years ago, two days were set aside so that what was then the Development Board for Rural Wales Bill could be dealt with by all hon. Members.
I agree with the Minister about one thing. The debate is not whether we are for or against the plan for the Cardiff bay barrage. It is about the principle of changing the Standing Order. However, many of us believe that it is essential that membership of the Committee that scrutinises the details of the Bill is as wide as possible, and includes all Welsh Members of Parliament. That is for one reason, and the reason that makes this example different from those that the Minister gave. It is that the Bill has aroused great controversy among those on both sides of the argument. It is proper that those involved in the debates on the Bill should be able properly to scrutinise its details.
The Bill deals not with any old town but with the capital city of Wales, any inevitably that is of great interest to all Welsh Members. It has serious implications for the environment of the Cardiff bay area, as the Minister, who represents part of Cardiff, knows only too well himself. It is of great interest also to many Welsh Members who do not represent Cardiff, but who have a deep interest in environmental matters. It must be of interest to us all because of the tens of millions of pounds that will be spent out of the public purse on Cardiff bay. If that money is to be spent, the very nature of the spending needs to be scrutinised by all Welsh Members of Parliament.
The reality is that the Government want a small Committee because they are not sure of victory in that forum. The official record of the debate 85 years ago shows that the then Conservative Member of Parliament for Ashford put quite well the case for the Minister today. He said:
The Members for Wales were generally of the opposite way of thinking to the Unionist Party"—
that is, the Conservative party, and things have not changed too much—
and it would be impossible for a Unionist Government to entrust legislation to Grand Committees … because no


Government would consent to send legislation to Committees on which they were in a minority."—[Official Report, 15 April 1907; Vol. 172, c. 671-720.]
That is why the Government wish to change the Standing Order—simply because they cannot guarantee success. Are the Government so unsure of the benefits to the bay? Are they so uncertain of the merits of the Bill that they cannot trust Welsh Members of Parliament to scrutinise the proposals? After all, that is what they are doing. The Second Reading debate, which judged the principles of the Bill, has long since gone. The Committee will deal. with safeguards, protections and details, so all Welsh Members should be allowed to take part in the proceedings.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State present because during and before the general election, when he attacked the principle of the Welsh Assembly and devolution, he always said that one of the reasons why it was unnecessary to have a Welsh Assembly in Cardiff was that the procedures and the institutions of the House of Commons were such that they safeguarded the interests of Welsh people. He said that there was nothing better than Welsh Question Time, the setting up of the Welsh Grand Committee and the Welsh day debate. Yet, tonight, the Government want to take away one of the most important parts of the procedure that deals with Welsh business, which has been established for nearly a century. At the same time, however, the Government have conceded that Members representing Scotland should be allowed to deal with local matters in their way. We should be allowed to do the same.
Many of us feel great dismay and unease about the erosion of the democratic process in Wales. By the time of the next election, Wales will have been subjected to two decades of unwanted Tory rule, but in election after election—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he was quite clear about the meaning of the motion, but he now seems to be straying from it. Will he now address his remarks to the motion?

Dr. John Marek: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will reflect carefully upon this debate, because it is no more than a gerrymander. The Tories cannot get their way with the current procedures, so they are changing them—gerrymandering them—to get their way. I think that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) were right and in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but he is challenging the Chair. If he wishes to catch my eye, I do not imagine that he will continue on that theme.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that, on reflection, you will understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was not challenging your ruling in any way. I am also sure that my hon. Friend would not regard your latter comment as a threat. It is important to point out that the motion that we accepted at 10 pm allows for the debate to continue until the business is finished. There is no discretion resting in the Chair as to whether my hon. Friend speaks in the debate. I ask you to reflect carefully on your recent comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for about as long as me. He knows full well that many hon. Members wish to speak tonight. They all have to catch my eye and I must use my judgment. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comment and I take it in the spirit in which it was made.

Mr. Murphy: The Government want to change the Standing Order and the nature of the way in which Welsh business is dealt with in the Chamber. Many of us believe that that is part of a general process by which the Welsh people have been deprived of their democratic rights. It is important that the proposed change is seen in the wider context of Welsh democracy.
In the next few months the Secretary of State will make great changes to local government in Wales with the result that we shall have fewer elected representatives than we have ever had. We must couple those changes and the motive behind tonight's debate with the fact that many non-elected public bodies in Wales are stuffed with the Secretary of State's placemen. Is it any wonder that Wales is fast becoming the least democratic nation in western Europe?
The Government have the power to impose their will on the House and the Welsh people, but they certainly do not have the right.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The motion is totally unacceptable to everyone in Wales who has any feeling for democracy in our country.
The Cardiff barrage is an eminently local issue. First and foremost, it deals with Cardiff, but it has implications for all of Wales because it has implications for the budget of the Welsh Office. Hon. Members representing all parts of Wales have the right to contribute to the arguments that must be pursued when the issue is dealt with in detail. The way in which we deal with Welsh legislation here, under Conservative Governments who have been in power for the last 13 years and who will run for at least another five, shows that it is not possible for us to achieve decisions in line with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Gentleman refers to the Conservatives being in power for at least another five years. Is his arithmetic right?

Mr. Wigley: We do not know what the outcome will be at the next general election. Perhaps I should have said that the present Government have a maximum of five years, although one does not know how the rules will be changed— [Interruption.] We can only imagine the course that the Government will pursue, considering that they are willing to change the rules in the respect we are discussing tonight, by which they are taking away rights that Welsh hon. Members have had since the beginning of this century.
It is not possible for Wales to expect democracy from this institution by virtue of the procedures that are being followed by the Government in this instance. It is not possible, within the institutions of the House of Commons or, for that matter, of the House of Lords— [interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats when I am standing. May we have a little more hush so that we can hear what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is saying?

Mr. Wigley: Clearly, we are all enjoying it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman says that he has no faith in this House. Does he have more faith in the House of Lords, now that it is occupied by, among others, Lord Trawsfynydd B?

Mr. Wigley: When I think of the long row of former Labour Members, ex-Labour candidates and ex-Labour local government leaders in Wales who are in another place, I begin to wonder. Decisions that must be taken at central Government level, especially when legislation is involved, should be taken in line with the wishes of the people of Wales. To the extent that we do not have an all-Wales elected body in which such decisions can be taken, they must be taken through hon. Members here.
There are 38 constituencies in Wales. The Government returned after the last election with six Welsh seats, compared with eight at the 1987 election. Six out of 38 apparently gives them a mandate to rule. What we are seeing with tonight's proposal is the same sort of direction as we see in the context of the Welsh Grand Committee when we debate other issues. That Committee, which handles legislation of this sort when it is passed to it, cannot take any meaningful decisions. We can only report back that we have considered, say, health, education or housing in Wales.
We are not allowed to take a decision because in that body there is, of necessity, a majority of hon. Members who represent parties other than the Government. For the past 120 years we have witnessed in the political body of Wales a situation in which there has never been a majority of Conservative MPs. In some elections, not one Conservative Member has been returned. The 1905 election was a case in point, when Wales was overwhelmingly Liberal. Keir Hardie was then the first Labour Member.
Although there has never been a majority of Conservatives, for two thirds of that time we have been governed by Conservative Governments who have had no mandate from Wales and who have been totally out of line with the social and economic aspirations of the people of Wales.
We may have to suffer that as the price of being part of the United Kingdom. But for local decisions that do not affect any other part of the nation, why is it not possible for us to have a modicum of democracy so that the Welsh people can take decisions in line with the views of their elected representatives in this House? If it is not possible for the House to live with that small degree of rights for the people of Wales, is that not a reflection of the bankruptcy of this system of government in affording any sort of democracy to the people of Wales?
Although the message may not come home in this Government's term of office because they insist on their majority in the United Kingdom, sooner or later the message will come home that the only way for the people of Wales to take decisions on this and other issues that go further, in line with their values and aspirations, will be

when we have our own state answerable to the Welsh people and our own Parliament in Cardiff and are not ruled by Conservative Governments in London.

Dr. John Marek: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing your eye to catch me seeking to contribute to the debate!
Sitting on the Government Benches is the Under-Secretary of State, who scraped by in the last general election with a majority of a few thousand; next to him is the Minister of State, who got 30 per cent. of the vote—two people voted against him for every person who voted for him; and, on his left-hand side is the Secretary of State for Wales, who does not even represent a seat in the Principality. That sums up the state of the Conservative party today.

Mr. David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that 23 Opposition Members elected in Wales, but only two Conservative Members from Wales, are in the Chamber? The Conservative party cannot even muster its four Back Benchers from Wales into the Chamber, yet the 23 Welsh Opposition Members who are interested in this matter are here. Where are the Conservatives?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. It is amazing that Conservative Members with seats in Wales are not here, yet we see clearly that there is intense interest in this measure from Opposition Members and that there is a full house of Welsh Opposition Members.
The measure is nothing more than a gross gerrymander. It is worse than that, because the Government could have chosen a Committee with an odd number of members and they would then have had a majority of only one. But they have chosen a Committee with an even number of members, thus giving them a majority of two over all other parties. Naturally, the Committee's membership should reflect the membership of the House, so on a Committee of 20 they should not even have a majority of one. Therefore, they have not only been insulting to the people of Wales but have tried to achieve as large a majority in the House as they dare.
During the general election, 50 per cent. of people voted Labour and only 28 per cent. of the Welsh electorate voted Conservative. So the Government have no mandate whatever. They cannot get their Back Benchers from Wales to attend this debate and the Minister makes a perfunctory speech, trying to kid us that the motion is technical and that we should consider nothing but the technicalities. The motion is important because it shows the naked truth of Tory colonial government in the Principality. The' Government know well that Welsh Members are intensely interested in what happens in our capital city. This was a private Bill about which the Government took no view either way. But behind the scenes, they wanted the Bill and they have now brought it forward as a Conservative party measure.
The measure may have had the support of hon. Members in Committee—I make no judgment about that. Some of us were against it and others were for it. Some hon. Members had qualms or reservations about parts of it and were prepared to see what we could do to get those parts changed, but were in favour of other parts of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not discussing the Bill, is he?

Dr. Marek: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wanted to be clear that the hon. Gentleman is discussing the motion on the Order Paper.

Dr. Marek: I am certainly doing so, and if I was not in order, I hope to be in order now.
There were Welsh Members who had different views on the Bill, about which they were knowledgeable and to which they wanted to contribute. The Bill might well have been passed; I think that it would have been. But the Government have tabled today's motion, thus denying most of us the opportunity to contribute towards the government of Wales, and Cardiff, its capital city.
I very much regret that fact. I cannot do anything more about it, as we are governed by the rules of the House, but I hope that we will divide on the motion and that as many of my hon. Friends—whether they support or oppose the Bill—will vote with me. We must show clearly that the motion is a manifestation of the jackboot tactics of the Conservative Government who have no roots or representation within the Principality and are foisting their will on Wales and its representatives, who are Opposition Members, as its representatives have been for the past 60, 70 and 80 years.
If the Government have a shred of integrity, they should rethink, withdraw the motion and consult through the usual channels to see whether agreement can be obtained so that we have a meaningful Committee. Its members should not be English Members of Parliament—probably sitting in south-east constituencies—with one qualification: no interest in Cardiff hay, the barrage or the Bill. Hon. Members who are interested in the Cardiff bay barrage should be able to participate in the debate in Committee. I think that that is the earnest wish of Opposition Members, and I hope that the Government will consider the position carefully before we vote on the motion.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Since 1282 Wales has had—[Interruption.] I thought that that might raise a cheer from immediately behind me. I shall start again: since 1282 Wales has had few distinctive constitutional rights. Tonight the Government have challenged one of those few remaining rights.
Of course, the Government have the perfect right to table the motion, and to seek to have a Committee that includes Members from outside Wales and does not reflect the political balance in Wales. But my understanding is that this is the first time, at least in modern times, that the Government have sought to force through such a motion. As the Minister said, in the past such motions have been passed, but I believe that they have been passed as a result of agreement through the usual channels. Therefore, tonight there has been an important constitutional departure for Wales, and with it a diminution of the constitutional rights of the Welsh people.
It is not important if uncontroversial Bills are discussed in Standing Committees that do not reflect the political balance of Wales. But when considering a controversial

measure such as the Bill before us, surely it must be a fundamental presumption that the Bill should follow the well laid down constitutional procedure. The presumption should be that controversial Bills go to the Welsh Grand Committee and the Government should take the risk of losing controversial Bills if that is the will of the Welsh people.
There is only one way in which the will of the Welsh people is represented in the House: through Members who represent Welsh constituencies. There is only one forum that gathers together Members who represent Welsh constituencies: the Welsh Grand Committee, which is the sum total of the Welsh constitution in the House of Commons.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks about the Welsh Grand Committee. I was the Chairman of that Committee when it conducted the Second Reading of the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill which became an Act in 1983. Why can the same procedure not apply now?

Mr. Carlile: We are dealing with a motion which is slightly different in procedural terms. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
If, as I have suggested, there is a presumption that controversial Welsh legislation in constitutional, legal terms should be dealt with by the Welsh Grand Committee, surely we are entitled to hear some evidence from the Minister to rebut that presumption. The Minister's speech was an extraordinarily small tunnel dug between the cell in which he is trapped and the outside world to enable him to try to escape from giving such evidence. The Minister is a nice man, but his speech was an insult to the House because he did not try to present a case for taking this controversial Welsh Bill before a Committee which would be dominated by the Government Whips. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members find Welsh business uninteresting. It would be polite for them to go to the Smoking Room, which is where they belong at this time of night. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) smiles. I am willing to give way to him if he wishes to share the joke. Conservatives seem to have an extraordinary, cavalier attitude to this important piece of Welsh legislation. That attitude is depicted by the loutish element below the Gangway.
The Government's attitude is extremely disreputable. This week they are paying lip service to world environmental problems. The proposal for the Cardiff barrage has raised tremendous environmental debate in Wales. The procedural motion seeks to brush aside the democratically expressed environmental concerns of Welsh Members. Those concerns can be expressed democratically only in the Welsh Grand Committee, and in tabling the motion the Government are treating the people of Wales with contempt.
The Secretary of State for Wales occasionally shows quite a degree of sensitivity—perhaps because he is not a Welsh Member—to the wishes of the people of Wales. He has often tried to keep Wales sweet, perhaps by going a little too far in the other direction and by consulting and obtaining opinion from as wide a spectrum as possible. Therefore, it is surprising that he should think it right to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people of Wales.


The Secretary of State is, or was once if he will forgive me putting it that way, a distinguished lawyer in private practice. He should reflect for a moment on the dangerous

constitutional principle that he is setting. That principle will enable the Government at will to push aside a long-standing major protection for the people of Wales. I hope that the Government will see that they have made a serious error and will say at the end of the debate that they have decided to think again.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall speak briefly because my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), in an eloquent and powerful speech from the Opposition Front Bench, advanced the general case against the motion.
The great tradition of this place, even in the unreformed House, was that when it came to considering Bills that affected interests, the names of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber were called out. That procedure was followed by an important and significant addition, which was that those who also had interests, whether they be Members representing constituencies in Wales, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire, should be added to the Committee. They, too, had voices. The unreformed House of Commons observed the principle that Members who had a particular interest could become members or the relevant Committee.
In my intervention I asked the Minister when a private Bill was last turned into a public Bill. The Bill that is the subject of the motion began life as a private Bill, and over the centuries Bills have been brought before the House that reflected private interests. As I have said, in the past any Member who represented an interest was entitled to serve in Committee. As a private Bill has become a public Bill, we should observe that fundamental principle. It should be considered in addition to the powerful arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen has advanced on the general issues.
When last did we convert a private Bill into a public Bill? The Minister failed to answer the question earlier. The Bill is different from the examples that he quoted, for he referred to Bills that were public from the start. They were agreed to by both sides of the House and, therefore, the procedure was agreed. In this instance the Government have decided to introduce a controversial motion which affects consideration of a controversial Bill. As I have said, it started its passage as a private Bill, not a public Bill.
It becomes clear on flicking through the journals of even the unreformed House of Commons that any Member who felt that he had an interest in legislation was entitled to join the relevant Committee and make his case. As the Bill that is the subject of the motion was originally private legislation, it should surely be considered by a Committee that reflects the widest spread of interests in the House. That means that every Welsh voice should be heard in Committee.
I understand the inconvenience that the Government face. Imagine what they would be presented with in Committee. There would be 38 Welsh Members, of whom only six would be firm Government supporters. I understand, of course, that in this instance there are cross-party views. That means that every Government supporter would have to suffer the indignity, as it were, of attending the sittings of the Committee.
The Government should be taught an important lesson. For 13 years they have driven legislation through the House for which they have not had to sweat. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is a piece of proposed legislation for which they should sweat, irrespective of where individual Members stand on the issue. If the Government want the Bill to pass through the House, they should accept a Committee of 38 Members. They could add however many Members they might wish to create a theoretical majority. It would be a large Committee, and during the proceedings

there could well be changes of view that would be contrary to the wishes of the Government Front Bench. The Bill would then be considered on Report, when the whole House would have to examine the arguments. The Government Whips would then have a role, and no doubt they would try to reverse any changes that had been made in Committee.
At least the Government would have to go through the hoop of attrition during the consideration of proposed legislation. For a long time the Government have not had to face the attrition that is involved in enacting legislation with a comparatively small majority. They must learn a lesson or two, and there is no harm in starting now. Over the past 13 years—

Mr. Alan Williams: The Government have the power to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants. Instead of diminishing the Welsh role they could change the maximum Committee membership of 50. They could increase the maximum to 60, 70 or 80. If they want a majority, why do they not change the maximum Committee membership and allow every Welsh Member to examine the Bill in Committee?

Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. We await the Minister's reply with interest. It will be terribly inconvenient to drag in many Conservative Back Benchers to overrule the wishes of the Committee and of Welsh Members.
Labour Members want the Committee to be established, because we want to expose the significance and character of such behaviour. The Government are entitled to reintroduce the Bill and to use Whips to carry the legislation, but I do not see why we should accept the gerrymandering of the Committee stage of a Bill that should be subject to genuine debate and cross-party and internal party debate in Committee.

Mr. Alun Michael: The motion seeks to determine the membership of the Committee that will consider the detail of a Bill which is of major importance to my constituents.
I have supported the Bill and have sought to improve it at every stage of its passage in its present incarnation as a hybrid Bill and in its previous form as a private Bill. Because I want no misunderstanding in the House or, more important, among my constituents, I wish briefly to explain my view.
Tonight's debate is not about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, as the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said. Hon. Friends who supported the Bill with me are among those who are most concerned about what the Government are seeking to do and will therefore vote against the motion. A vote against the motion and against the exception to the Standing Order is, therefore, in no sense a vote against the Bill.
Perhaps it should not be necessary to spell out such an obvious point, but the House should be aware that attempts have been made in the past, sometimes by opponents of the Bill and sometimes by adherents of the Conservative party, to misrepresent votes cast on previous occasions. Let us have no nonsense on that account in regard to tonight's vote.
Tonight's debate is about the way in which Wales is governed. The Standing Order, the importance of which


was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, enunciates an important principle: that issues wholly to the interest of the people of Wales should be decided by those elected by the people of Wales. Although there are precedents for the motion, most were set by a Labour Government who enjoyed majority support by the electors of Wales.
I am keen to see proper scrutiny of the Bill and proper consideration of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen on behalf of the Opposition. I therefore see some value in a smaller Committee than is dictated by the Standing Order, but the implications of the issues before us are much wider.
Until now, the one view on which we have all been united is that the procedures under which the Bill and its predecessors have been considered are complicated, obscure and unhelpful. Tonight's debate addresses the constitutional point of a democratic deficit resulting from the wide powers available to the Government to ignore the views of the people of Wales, who did not vote for a Conservative Government. They certainly did not vote for a Liberal or nationalist Government either; they voted for a Labour Government.
I have faith that an elected assembly, such as that proposed by the Labour party, would, given full consideration of all the issues, have supported the measure that the Committee will consider, just as the Labour-controlled county of South Glamorgan has supported and promoted the barrage throughout.
That is my personal view. Others may differ, but that is not the issue before us. What is before us is not support or opposition to the barrage Bill but the simple question whether the principle established when the Standing Order was first implemented should be cast aside or diminished. Even more important—this is my final and most crucial point—it should be upheld when the House considers the Welsh language Bill, which the Government will, at long last, introduce shortly, and the reform of local government, which has such important implications for every part of Wales.
I hope that the Minister will consider that last point very seriously and address it in his response to the debate. I am surprised, indeed, that he did not do so in his introduction to the debate. It is crucial to consideration of the motion that he should give us a cast-iron promise on behalf of the Government that the principle in the Standing Order will be respected without interference in respect of those two Bills and similar Bills of wide interest to Wales that are brought before the House in the future.

Mr. Ron Davies: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is deluding himself if he believes that he will get that assurance from the Minister. I listened very carefully to the Minister when he dealt with that issue and I drew two conclusions.
First, if there is logic in what the Government are doing on this occasion and if they are empowered to set aside the Standing Orders, logic will allow them to do exactly the same in future when it suits them. I hardly think that the Minister will give a guarantee. Secondly, if one reads the Minister's comments in Hansard one will see that he said

that it is for the House on a future occasion to decide what its view will be. I have been here long enough to know what that means—it means that the Government want to restrict tonight's debate to the particular motion, but it is as clear as can be that if there is a recurrence of the situation in which the Government do not have a mandate or majority for legislation referring specifically to Wales, they will reintroduce the order.
I have no doubt that when we come to debate local government reorganisation or the Welsh language Bill—precisely the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—we shall again be in the same position. I am not being derogatory, but we shall face an English Minister and English Tory Members of Parliament driving through the House legislation which will deny the right of Welsh Members of Parliament to sit in on a Committee stage that will shape the future of local government in their communities.
That is a travesty of democracy and it is precisely because I believe that the Minister understands that it is a travesty that he was so casual and cursory in opening the debate. He made no attempt at justification or to explain the rationale. He tried to skip over the debate by saying that it was not about the Bill. Of course the debate is not about the Bill, but the Bill is at the heart of the dilemma now facing the Government.
If the Bill was non-controversial, we would not be in this position. If it were non-controversial like the legislation on Caldey island and the Conwy crossing, it would have gone through. The fact that the Bill is controversial means that it should be subject to democratic scrutiny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, that opportunity will exist on Report but the Government are denying us the right to have a considered and informed debate in Committee. It is a shame that the Government should be in such a position.
The motion will undoubtedly be passed. We are told that it is a matter for the House and that every hon. Member will be free to vote as he or she wishes, but we know that that is not true. The Secretary of State failed when he tried to impose a whip when the legislation was a private Bill. This time, the Government Whips are out in force and they will ensure that there is a majority for the motion. That will mean that the voice of the people of Wales as expressed in the ballot box at the election will be set aside.
The people of Wales elected 27 Labour members of Parliament. For the record, they elected six Tory Members of Parliament. With the exception of the two conscripts on the Front Bench, we have not seen those six. There can be no justification for that. The Minister and his colleagues can preach the sanctity of the United Kingdom, but they must recognise that Wales is a nation with its own institutions and political structures. For 80 years the very Standing Order that the Government are setting aside has been part of the bedrock of our Welsh nationhood.
The Government must think carefully about the consequences of what they are doing, especially when it is being done in the teeth of united opposition. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth spoke as he did. Let Ministers have no doubt that it is not a question of those who oppose the Cardiff bay barrage opposing the motion. Every Welsh Opposition


Member of Parliament is involved, including those from the Labour party and from Plaid Cymru. The solitary Liberal Democrat has also added his voice.
We are united in telling the Government that what they are about to do is a folly because they are setting aside the verdict of the people of Wales. What the Government sow tonight they will reap in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The words of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) have prompted me to speak in the debate, although I had not intended to do so.
There has been considerable discussion in my party about a Welsh assembly and about the proper government of Wales. Unlike most of my colleagues, I have never believed that there should be a Welsh assembly because the Welsh assembly is envisaged by my party and by other people as being an assembly that would take powers from local government. I cannot imagine this House giving up its powers to an assembly in Wales. That is why I have always been committed to the concept of a Welsh parliament with legislative and revenue powers. I am not likely to join Plaid Cymru in pursuing my case. If I ever spoke in a Welsh parliament, I know that I would never have to call on a Liberal Democrat because no Liberal Democrat would be elected to a Welsh parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has put his finger on the issue. The Government are planting a seed in Wales and they will rue the day they take this action. They are feeding the nationalist movement in Wales as represented by the hon. Members sitting behind me, who were elected by 8 per cent. of the electorate.
For the slight advantage of getting the Bill on the statute book sooner rather than later, which is all that the motion will achieve, the Government are acting in a way that will constitutionally destroy politics in Wales as we know them today. The Government do not realise what they are doing.

Mr. Alan Williams: May I prevail on the Secretary of State to take a more reasonable view of how he deals with the situation? One well understands that the Government feel that they must get their legislation through, although many of us do not regard the measure as an appropriate Government Bill. There is an alternative which I have already tried to intimate. If there were no alternative, one could understand the Secretary of State coming here and riding roughshod over Welsh Members and over the Standing Orders.
The Minister has quoted precedents which do not bear examination. When the Labour Government were in power and they took the action proposed today, they reduced their representation on the Standing Committee to give the Opposition a better opportunity to present a balanced view. On the other hand, we should examine the later precedents quoted which occurred in the 1980s under this Government. The Conservatives introduced similar measures without opposition by Labour because the Opposition agreed that, for the Bills involved, not all Members representing Welsh seats would wish to be members of the Committee. This is the first time since 1907 that the Opposition have said that they will not support

such a change because they think that every Welsh Member should have the freedom to participate in debates.
There is a way by which the objectives of both sides could be reconciled. It may not meet with the wishes of my hon. Friends; I have not had a chance to consult them. The Opposition's right to sustain the freedom of every Welsh Member to take part in discussions on the Bill could be sustained, and the Government's majority maintained, if instead of altering this Standing Order the Government chose to alter the earlier Standing Order that sets a ceiling on the number of members of the Committee. If that ceiling were raised from 50 to 65, every Welsh Member could take part and the Government could have their majority. Honour would be satisfied on both sides of the House.
This is a test of the reasonableness of the Secretary of State. He can go away and consider our proposition this evening, discuss it through certain channels, and establish whether we can reach some agreed arrangement; or he can do something that would be grossly offensive not just to Opposition Members, but to the people of Wales. Given the depletion in the number of Conservative Back Benchers, the right hon. Gentleman can force a vote on a motion that he need not push—for reasons that I have explained. He can call on the English Back Benchers in the Tea Room and other rooms in the House and use them to bulldoze his wishes through against the wishes of Welsh Members.
Let me appeal to the Secretary of State, even at this late stage. We need not waste much time; if the usual channels agreed the matter, it could go through on the nod. I cannot give a commitment to that effect, but it is an option. I realise that neither of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues is in a position to make such a policy change without his consideration. I therefore ask him to use his power to protect the rights of Welsh Members, and the Welsh electorate, by giving just a week's consideration to my proposal.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: All my hon. Friends have spoken briefly, and I want to speak briefly as well. I simply want to ensure that our views have been put on record, in a way that appeals to what used to be thought of as the better nature of Ministers. I ask them not to use the Whip, and a procedural device in Standing Committee, to ram through the legislation, and then to repeat the exercise when other Welsh legislation is dealt with later in the Session. I hope that the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and Government business managers will respond to that appeal. It is rare for three exclusively Welsh Bills to arise in a single, if long, Session of Parliament.
The Prime Minister has spoken of his wish to "take stock"—I use his phrase—of the need to examine the constitutional relationship between an overwhelmingly Tory England and an overwhelmingly Labour Scotland, but he has not expressed a similar wish to deal with the relationship between a largely Tory England and an overwhelmingly Labour Wales.

Mr. Michael Connarty: During the Committee stage of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, Scottish Members called for a ruling. The Chairman ruled that Standing Order No. 86 should apply in consideration


of the Bill, which is very controversial and will affect hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland. Perhaps his decision to adhere to Standing Orders was a move in the right direction. Why have not the Government taken the same view in this instance?

Mr. Morgan: I very much welcome that display of Celtic solidarity from my Scottish colleague. It is no more than I would have expected from a new Scottish colleague, because we are equally interested in seeing how we can keep the United Kingdom united. To do that, the largely English majority of the Tory Government should not abuse the power to treat sensitively the issue of how to handle the fact that Scotland and Wales are nowhere as big as England. England has 82 per cent. of the population and 82 per cent. of the membership of the House.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Wôn): Can the hon. Gentleman point to an example of the Government being sensitive to the needs of Wales?

Mr. Morgan: Not so far—absolutely not. I have said that they have made some intimation that they intend to be sensitive to the needs of Scotland. They appear tonight to be going in the opposite direction in regard to Wales. That is what is so disappointing. At the same time as they are at least trying to make the first moves towards redefining the relationship with Scotland to confer greater powers of control—although that has not yet happened, but there have been early intimations of it—we in Wales are getting the mucky end of the stick. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the addition of another member of the Government on the Front Bench, who may want to intervene to talk about a family matter known as the elective dictatorship, which we are experiencing tonight?

Mr. Morgan: The elective dictatorship is the problem, but the problem is also the shape of the United Kingdom. Scotland has 10 per cent. of the population, Wales has 5 per cent., and Northern Ireland has 3 per cent. Altogether that is about 18 per cent., but 82 per cent. remains to England. That relationship must be dealt with sensitively. So far, we are moving in the wrong direction. We want the Government to undertake to take back the matter and consider it and the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friends.
The Government should redefine the way in which they are approaching exclusively Welsh legislation, given that they now have three measures coming up. Whereas it used to be one Welsh Bill every two years, we have three in a year and a half of this long Session. The Government should try to start in the way they mean to continue. So far, the Minister has said absolutely nothing about what will happen with the Welsh language Bill. Will he say that he will not use the Standing Orders to curtail Welsh Members' rights to participate in proceedings on the Welsh language Bill or the Welsh local government reform Bill, which was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but we have since been promised it? Will he say, "Well, we won't do that with the Welsh local government reform Bill," or is this the thin end of the wedge? We do not know.
I hope that the Minister will say something. If he is not willing to say something, we shall fear the worst. The

people of Wales, as has been said by three Opposition parties, will be very angry and will perceive that the Tory party is using the jackboot and importing Tory Back Benchers for the sole purpose of ramming through the legislation.
Sheep-like English Back Benchers will not even think about the issues. They will not even know the names of the places that are referred to. They will simply follow in the time-honoured manner and be compared unfavourably with Sainsbury's shopping trolleys in respect of having minds of their own. They will vote how Government Whips tell them without even being aware of what they are voting on, simply to create an artificial majority by the importation of carpetbagging English Back-Bench Members to make up the majority that the Government cannot win of their own accord by democratic vote in Wales.
Let us remember that this is not the first time that this procedure has been applied to the Bill. It was applied just before the general election. On 9 March, one of the worst examples of Government business in shambles in the past 10 years was displayed in the House by Nicholas Bennett, the Minister's predecessor. We all remember it. Nicholas Bennett was an hon. Member, never to be a right hon. Member, and probably will never be an hon. Member again. He was in charge of that supreme shambles. The Bill was bounced straight into Standing Committee less than a week before Parliament was due to rise. At the last minute, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the day before the Bill was to be considered in Standing Committee, the Clerks discovered that the exemption for Welsh legislation from the normal rules of the House states that the Government's majority must be reflected in Committee and that hon. Members who played a prominent role on Second Reading should be on the Committee.
Upstairs the Government discovered all of a sudden, "Ah, this is Welsh legislation. What are we going to do?" The postcards were sent round in a hurry saying to hon. Members, "Can you be there tomorrow?" Of course, we all turned up in large numbers because we do our work. We expect to have to turn up when Welsh business is discussed, in order to earn our salaries at the end of the month.
But Conservative Back-Bench Members—there are only half a dozen of them—have not even bothered to turn up tonight. I do not know what they are doing. How can they ask the people of Wales to elect them when they do not show any interest in Welsh business when they have the chance? It is an absolute disgrace. They are not even as good as Sainsbury's shopping trolleys which they have been for five years. I am disgusted by the lack of interest among the four new Welsh Conservative Back-Bench Members—the hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) and for Monmouth (Mr. Evans).
When the Standing Order was applied to keep the Committee to 20, the people of Wales were given the opportunity to express their democratic verdict on what they thought about Tory Governments and their measures. What did they say? Before the election Labour had 26 Members and the Conservatives had six. After the election we have finished up with 27 Members and the Government still have six. They are now in an even smaller


minority than before. The people of Wales had their chance to express a view on a raft of Government measures and gave their verdict.
Who should determine who should sit on Standing Committees to deal with exclusively Welsh legislation? The Opposition say that, through their votes at general elections, the people of Wales should decide. They had the chance to do it. A plebiscite was held on 9 April. In Wales the Labour party did three or four times as well as the Conservative party. The Government say, "We do not care about that. We have to get our business through. We do not care if we are in a tiny minority." They simply ram the legislation through by bringing in English Tory Members of Parliament.
Is that the sort of message that we want to send to the people of eastern Europe and the trouble-torn peoples of the Balkans? Do we want to say, "Well, this is the way we do it in the Mother of Parliaments. We do not give a damn about small nations on the periphery of the United Kingdom"? Is that what we wish to say to the people of Yugoslavia as we attempt to send in peace missions and tell them how to organise themselves and keep themselves apart? Are we so insensitive to the demands and rights of peripheral parts of the United Kingdom which have had rights laid down in the Standing Orders of the House for 85 years?
The Government are going in the wrong direction and had better rethink. This is the second time that they have taken such a measure in respect of this Bill at exactly the same stage. We have had a general election in between times and I do not want them to be so foolish as to create further anger in Wales on the issue.
We had the Danish referendum last week. It is the same issue again. Peripheral countries do not want to be pushed around by the big countries. It is exactly the same issue. the Government must now take note of the Danish referendum result. They will also have to take note of the verdict of the Welsh people on 9 April. It is all part of the treatment of minorities within a wider democracy. I hope that the Government arc getting the message clearly.
We are not discussing the merits or demerits of the barrage. That is not the point at issue tonight. The point at issue is the way in which the Government treat minorities in the House and how we can express the rights that we have had for 85 years. The Minister did not give an accurate picture of the clash at the heart of the motion between the Government's desire to have a majority on the Bill, which is expressed in hidden terms, and the rights of minorities. He skipped through the introduction to the Bill. He referred to the fact the Government have to have majorities on Standing Committees. Standing Order No. 86 does not say that, but merely hints at it.
It is custom and practice in the House for the Government to have a majority. Standing Order No. 86 states:
shall have regard … to the composition of the House".
It does not state that there must be a majority. That is simply hinted at. It is also a custom and practice of the House that hon. Members who played a major part in the Second Reading debate should be on the Standing Committee. That is not actually stated in the Standing Order, but it is hinted at. One has to read between the lines. That is what we normally assume is the meaning of
shall have regard to the qualifications of those Members nominated".

That does not actually state that those hon. Members should be the people who played a major part in the Second Reading debate.
However, the exemption about Welsh business is not a matter of hints or reading between the lines. The point is made in black and white. If the legislation is Welsh legislation—and the Clerks have ruled that this is—one exempts from it the provisions about reflecting the Government's majority. That is clear in mathematical print and there can be no doubt about it. All Welsh legislation is exempt from the rule that states that one shall preserve in the Standing Committee the balance of the majority of the House.
In a skimpy dish-rag of an opening speech, the Minister tried to imply that those two great issues clashed and therefore the Government had to decide how to resolve the clash. There is no clash. Welsh legislation is exempt from the first principle. That is absolutely plain in Standing Order No. 86. If it is exempt from the principle, less than two months after the general election, the Government should have regard for the views of the Welsh people. The people of Wales should decide who goes on Standing Committees that deal with exclusively Welsh legislation and not the Tory majority elected outside Wales.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have had a very good, short and generally good-natured debate. Even some of the stronger comments fall within the good nature in which we generally manage to conduct all Welsh affairs. Happily, we managed to stay almost entirely within the remit of the motion and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had very seldom to call us to order. I will try to deal with any unanswered questions that have arisen in the debate.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), in a brief contribution, presented a fascinating history of past ways of considering such measures. I am afraid I do not have the information readily available to answer his question about when a private Bill was last turned into a public Bill. I will try to find out for the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will accept that I will write to him with that information.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made several references to the Welsh Grand Committee. However, that is not included in Standing Order No. 86. While there are references to the Scottish Grand Committee, there is no suggestion that Welsh legislation should be directed towards the Welsh Grand Committee.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), from the Opposition Front Bench, cited the examples—

Mr. Morgan: The beginning of Standing Order No. 86 states:
Save in the case of—

(a) the Scottish Grand Committee,
(b) the Welsh Grand Committee, and
(c) a standing committee for the consideration of a bill on report".

I am sure that the Minister did not mean to say that there was no mention of the Welsh Grand Committee in Standing Order No. 86. Unless he has a different version of the Standing Order from mine, he is not correct.

Mr. Jones: I will reflect on that point if necessary. However, I have a copy of the Standing Order and the most important point, which I quoted earlier, states:


for the consideration of any public bill relating exclusively to Wales, the committee shall be so constituted as to include all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.
I think that that is the point that we must address this evening, and that is the point that we have been addressing. We should have made progress on it.

Mr. Morgan: My point is that I believe that the Minister said in error that there was no reference to the Welsh Grand Committee in Standing Order No. 86. I was anxious to correct him because we Whitchurch grammar school boys have got to stick together.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When he waves the old school tie at me, I have to concede. Yes, there is reference at the beginning of the Standing Order to
Save in the case of—…
(b) the Welsh Grand Committee".
However, we must direct our attention to the latter part of Standing Order No. 86 and the proviso to which I have already referred and which is the basis of our discussion this evening.
The hon. Member for Torfaen cited the examples from 1975 and 1976, when there was a Labour Government. I cited those examples, and others from 1983 and 1990 when there was a Conservative Government. In 1983, when we dealt with the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Bill, there was an unopposed motion to limit the Standing Committee to 17 members, including not fewer than 12 Members sitting for constituencies in Wales. That is exactly what we seek to do through this motion. The 1990 example of the Caldey Island Bill, which was referred to a Standing Committee for Second Reading, was dealt with by a Committee consisting of only 10 Members representing Welsh constituencies.

Mr. Murphy: I was fortunate enough to be one of those 10 Members who dealt with the Caldey Island Bill, but that measure did not arouse controversy in Wales. Will the Minister answer our point that we are disputing the motion because this is the only time that such a controversial Bill hs been considered in this way?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right. By my recollection, more controversy has surrounded the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill than was felt about the Caldey Island Bill, or even with the Bill dealing with the Conwy tunnel. Nevertheless, we are dealing with a procedural motion, and we must confine ourselves to that.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The House would be grateful if the Minister could cite any opposed motion of this sort. Is it not true that, whenever a motion such as this has been passed, it has dealt with unopposed Bills? Therefore, does he accept that the Government are taking an exceptional course?

Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being somewhat premature. We have not yet got to the vote on the motion, and I sincerely hope that my poor eloquence at the Dispatch Box will persuade and convince him not to oppose the motion.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) suggested that the ceiling on membership of a Standing Committee should be raised to 65. I doubt whether there is any precedence for such a suggestion. It

would move us towards an unwieldy Committee, which must be contrary to the spirit of Standing Order No. 86 under which a Committee shall have not more than 50 members.

Mr. Alan Williams: I consulted the Clerk of the House before making that proposal, and he agreed that there is nothing to stop the House making such a rule if it so wished. The advantage of the system is that it retains the requirement to which the Minister referred—that, where possible, every Welsh Member should be able to take part.

Mr. Jones: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but I doubt whether there is any precedent for doing it. The House can do what it wants. I feel that it would be at variance with the way in which things have been done before to have such a large Committee. However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for one thing. He was the first speaker, apart from me, to acknowledge that there is a serious inconsistency in Standing Order No. 86 that has to be dealt with. That is what the motion will achieve.

Mr. Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to assert that the Standing Orders of the House have an inherent contradiction within them that makes them inoperable?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That seems to me to be a double negative. I ask the hon. Gentleman to rethink his point.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) was concerned about the precedents that the debate was establishing. I do not regard what we are doing as setting a precedent. I cannot do anything that will bind the House in the future. Whatever we choose to do is entirely a matter for the House of Commons. I can say no more or less.

Mr. Michael: I must make it clear that I was asking the hon. Gentleman, not to bind the House, but to bind the Government in relation to the important Bills on the Welsh language and the reorganisation of local government structure in Wales. The Minister comes to the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government and I ask him to bind them, not the House.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not catch my earlier remarks, but I know that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) did. It always remains for the House to decide what it will do on future occasions. I can say no more and no less than that. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Caerphilly echoed the concern expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

Mr. Michael: If the Minister had the authority to do so, he could say that neither he nor his ministerial colleagues would seek to exempt the application of the Standing Order to the Committee stage of the Bills on the Welsh language and Welsh local government. That would greatly assist the House. Surely the Government can give that assurance now. If the Government wish to show respect to the House and accept the important points of principle that we raised about those two Bills, it is open to the Minister to offer that assurance on their behalf.

Mr. Jones: I have been clear and concise. Whatever the legislation, I cannot commit the House. It will be for the House to consider the issue as and when specific legislation is discussed.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister should think again about my suggestion. He rejected it, but he accepted that, according to the advice of the Clerks, it is procedurally possible and appropriate. Can he quote any precedent for what the Government are now doing by forcing through a change against the wishes of the Welsh Members?

Mr. Jones: I have already dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that we can proceed on an unopposed basis; that is what I am seeking to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to do.
Finally, I must refer to my old school chum, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I should congratulate him on making his shortest and most concise contribution to date on the Bill. I even detected a note of sympathy in his speech, as he conceded that we must find the best way forward. However, I do not accept his argument that the motion represents in the Standing Order that I cannot see. His sum case was for the preservation of an inconsistency—in itself an inconsistency that should not be allowed.
The motion represents the best way forward and the best response to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West it is a far better answer than that which he proposed. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 86.

Division No. 27]
[11.48 pm


Ayes


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clappison, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Colvin, Michael


Amess, David
Congdon, David


Ancram, Michael
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Cran, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bates, Michael
Day, Stephen


Beresford, Sir Paul
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowden, Andrew
Elletson, Harold


Bowis, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, John Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Cash, William
Freeman, Roger


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Gallie, Phil


Chapman, Sydney
Gardiner, Sir George





Garnier, Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorst, John
Page, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patnick, Irvine


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Grylls, Sir Michael
Pickles, Eric


Hague, William
Porter, Davie (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Richards, Rod


Hampson, Dr Keith
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hargreaves, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Harris, David
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hawkins, Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hawksley, Warren
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heald, Oliver
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hendry, Charles
Speed, Keith


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Spink, Dr Robert


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Stern, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Allan


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Streeter, Gary


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Sweeney, Walter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sykes, John


Key, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kilfedder, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thomason, Roy


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Tracey, Richard


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Tredinnick, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Trend, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Legg, Barry
Viggers, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Walden, George


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Lidington, David
Waller, Gary


Lightbown, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Watts, John


Lord, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Luff, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wilkinson, John


Malone, Gerald
Willetts, David


Mans, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Marlow, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Wood, Timothy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Yeo, Tim


Merchant, Piers
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Milligan, Stephen



Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Moate, Roger
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Moss, Malcolm





NOES


Ainger, Nicholas
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Cox, Tom


Benton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Betts, Clive
Dafis, Cynog


Boyce, Jimmy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dobson, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Evans, John (St Helens N)






Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Milburn, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Miller, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pickthall, Colin


Hain, Peter
Pike, Peter L.


Hall, Mike
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hanson, David
Prescott, John


Heppell, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rogers, Allan


Hutton, John
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Steinberg, Gerry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Strang, Gavin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lewis, Terry
Wallace, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Loyden, Eddie
Watson, Mike


McAvoy, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


McNamara, Kevin
Wise, Audrey


Mahon, Alice
Wright, Tony


Marek, Dr John



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Michael, Alun
Mr. Ted Rowlands and


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mr. Win Griffiths.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees), any Standing Committee appointed for the consideration of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill shall consist of twenty Members, including not fewer than twelve Members sitting for constituencies in Wales.

Employment and Training

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 27th February, in the last Session of Parliament be approved.
The proposals seek authority for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board to raise a levy on employers in the engineering construction industry to finance the running costs of the board and to fund a range of training initiatives, including a grants scheme. The proposals provide for a levy based on the payroll of employers and their use of subcontract labour. They cover both the site and head office employment and also provide protection for smaller employers. The proposals have the support of the employers—as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982—and the full support of the board.
The engineering construction industry has characteristics that create peculiar training problems. The mobile nature of the work of the industry and its work force, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of subcontractors and self-employed labour, produce a unique set of circumstances in that sector of the engineering industry. For those reasons, the industry argued strongly for the need to retain statutory arrangements, including the power to impose a levy on employers. They argued that that was the best way of ensuring that sufficient numbers of new entrants were trained and brought into the industry, and that the skills of existing workers were kept up to date.
We were persuaded to accept those arguments, and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board was established in its own right in the middle of last year. At the same time, the engineering manufacturing sector opted to set up its own independent arrangements, and was taken out of the statutory system. I am happy to say that the ECITB has worked hard, in partnership with the industry, to meet the manpower and skill needs of that important sector of the economy. Employers in the industry remain firm in their support for the board. That fact will be taken into account when the next review takes place in 1994.
We were concerned to ensure that statutory burdens on firms were kept to a minimum, and that firms that trained appropriately were rewarded. In the proposals, the small firms threshold has been raised for both head offices and sites. In addition, the exemption scheme has been replaced by a grant scheme designed to reward those employers who train in key skill areas and those who seek investors in people awards. Our preference remains for independent employer-led sector training arrangements, but we accept there are strong arguments for the exceptions to continue. I expect to lay before the House shortly an order to wind up the Road Transport Board.
Industry training organisations are a vital component of the national training framework, complementing the work of training and enterprise councils at local level, and the Government well recognise the value of their contribution individually, and collectively through their national council. The order will secure the continuation of effective training arrangements in the small but important engineering construction sector as part of the network of sector training arrangements. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Henry McLeish: We have no intention of dividing the House, but we will take this opportunity to express our concerns about some of the Government's work in the training sector. The order relating to the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board is moved every year, and another order is moved for the Construction Industry Training Board.
It is a tragedy that what started as an impressive infrastructure of skills training in the early part of the 1980s has been reduced from 23 boards to two. The key worry about the Government's policies is that this may be one of the last times that an order is moved. The Government are considering reducing the final two boards to what they euphemistically describe as a voluntary situation. We take exception to that and I want to highlight the continuing crisis in skills in Britain and the Government's failure to face up to the reality of that crisis, and to describe some of the deficiencies in Government policies.
Nearly 100,000 young people are currently without a youth training place. For two reasons, that is a scandal. First, young people have neither training nor a job and, secondly, they have no benefit. The Government can dismiss that by saying that it is a matter for social security, but Britain is now the only country in Europe in which nearly 100,000 young people are not offered training, a job, or benefit. Consequently, they have no hope of securing a place in a society that is still dominated by the work ethic. In this decade the Government have led us to believe that there was an economic miracle. The recently published labour force survey for 1991 shows that there was a fall in the number of people in training in Britain. How can that be when the Government have told us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the engineering construction board. He must relate at least part of his speech to that.

Mr. McLeish: The engineering industry has the most impressive record of all industries in training young people. The labour force survey, which I mentioned, includes people of all ages who are training in all industries, including engineering. My speech is germane not only to the engineering industry but to the wider skills crisis that the Government are ignoring. I shall deal with our specific worries about that industry's future.
The proportion of people in training has gone down from 15.4 per cent. of the population in 1990 to 14.9 per cent. The Government cannot take any comfort from that, because it suggests that, setting aside the quality and qualification issues, there is a volume problem in that the number of people in training is falling. The situation has been dramatically worsened by cuts over the past few years. There is press speculation that the Department of Employment may be forced to make further cuts at a time when the need for skills is great and the need for training for the unemployed is significant. That sets the general context in which any debate on skills should be set.
The Government response will be, "What about TECs and their local delivery of training?" The innovation of TECs has been warmly welcomed by all hon. Members. The Government have invested in them as a flagship policy, but TECs can function properly only if they have a clearly focused policy and the right resources to

undertake their tasks. One of those tasks is much better and more effective co-ordination with sector organisations such as the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board.
The Government have invested a great deal of time and resources in TECs, but have given no time whatever to the development of sector policy which is important in other European countries. They have simply tinkered with the problems surrounding the skills crisis. Voluntarism is a euphemism for the market model, and it is failing Britain, young people, our skilled engineering sectors and the unemployed. At a time of economic crisis the Government will make matters worse by further cuts in training expenditure. Why will the Department of Employment and the Government not look at the deep-seated, long-term structural problems that Britain faces? It is not a partisan issue. Compared with every competitor country in Europe and the Pacific rim and with America and Japan, we lag behind on the key indicator of skills.
Many hoped that after 13 years of Conservative Government—like many other parties, the Conservative party has extolled the virtues of training—we would see a closing of the gap that has opened between Britain and its European and worldwide competitors. It is sad that that has not happened. The Opposition contend that the wrong agenda is being pursued. If there is any doubt about Britain's position in the 1990s, and there is, we must compete, produce and improve our economic performance by ensuring that along with our TECs, which are good for local delivery and which tackle a wide range of issues, we have strong, responsive and well-funded sector initiatives. There are real fears among members of the CITB, the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board and the newly established Employment Training Authority that the Government are not interested in and committed to seeing through the fundamental changes that will improve our competitive position. I shall quote from the CITB news release of 2 June. The chairman of the board, Sir Clifford Chetwood was talking to the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicans when he said:
Without a statutory levy the board would not be able to afford to pay grants to employers using approved courses.
That is not a socialist speaking. Sir Clifford has a wide knowledge of the construction industry. He has constantly lectured the Government on the wisdom of having a statutory framework, and up to now the Government have accepted that argument.
The argument that the Government have used to support the CITB has been deployed to support the existence of the ECITB, and that is the need for a statutory framework that provides a levy. Two reviews are taking place of the future of the boards and it is against that background that I say categorically that if the membership of the boards and the employers within the industry want to continue with the statutory framework, they should be allowed to do so. I hope that the Minister will respond to that when he replies to the debate, for the issue is crucial to confidence for the future. I hope that the Minister is taking notes as he laughs his way through. We are facing a crisis and the level of debate from the Government Front Bench is pathetic, as is the support that is being given to important boards that are trying to do important work.
I shall mention some of the achievements of the ECITB. Despite the recession, it is undertaking 26 per cent. more training this year than in the previous year. It has concerns


about the future, however, because of the Government's menacing approach to anything that smacks of statutory provision. When will the Minister start to put the skills needs of the nation above the political dogmas of his party? Unlike Germany, France, Japan and Korea, we have a Government who are not committed to the policies that Britain and its economy need. That is sad.
Reviews are being undertaken and I hope that the Government will listen and not lecture. I hope also that they will acknowledge experts who are at the frontiers of new provision, who are doing an excellent job and who are in a better position to tell the Government what is happening than the Government are to tell the experts what they should be doing. It is fundamental that we should have a commitment to allow the boards to continue, if they so wish, with a statutory framework.
It is clear that training is a market failure. Anyone who has examined the history of Britain's economy over the century, or over a longer period, will readily admit that training is a market failure. Against that background, it seems ludicrous that the responses have not overcome the failure but have reinforced it by rejecting a statutory framework and introducing voluntarism regardless of the consequences.
Twenty-three training boards became seven and now there are two, both of which are faced with an uncertain future. There is a crisis of confidence within the boards, which the Government could easily alleviate by making it clear that they intend to listen, as I have suggested.
It is tragic that we can debate such issues only on a order continuing the levy. I challenge the Government to hold a debate on the wider issues that affect skills training which we cannot consider this evening.
I want to suggest a number of key issues that should start to shape Government policy. The first is the rejection of voluntarism, which is not working. Every statistic suggests that we have a gender gap, a regional gap and a widening gap between ourselves and our international competitors. When will the Government realise that the market failure in training must be treated with a combination of the marvellous response that we see from private and public employers and from a Government who are willing to invest their time and energy in providing a statutory framework, which our more successful competitor countries have?
The second issue is public investment. It is a measure of Britain in the 1990s that we are still having a debate on public investment. All the signs are that the public expenditure round, which is under way, will be tough on training. Given the crisis in skills, the Government cannot run away from their responsibilities by pretending that the Treasury is holding a pistol to their head and is saying that they will have to shave off further expenditure on YT, ET or TECs. It simply does not add up. I challenge the Government to say that in the public investment round the Secretary of State for Employment will not only fight her corner but will seek extra resources in a key area for Britain's success in the 1990s.
My third point is that, despite the market rhetoric of the Government, the key to success is the individual. The Government have failed to empower the individual to take advantage of training. They have talked and talked—a bit like their attitude to child care: they talk a lot but action

is limited. Why do not they accept that unless we can motivate and empower individuals we shall make little impact on skills problems?

Mr. Phil Gallie: We have heard many words from the hon. Gentleman, but on what facts are they based? Until recently, I worked in engineering and in industry. I found the standards of our young people exceptionally high. I had little problem in finding the skills that were required. Employers are increasingly putting cash and resources into training. What we are hearing from the hon. Member is nothing but words.

Mr. McLeish: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has strayed quite wide. I have been rather tolerant, considering what the Chairman of Ways and Means said earlier. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick to the narrow subject of the motion.

Mr. McLeish: I shall, and I hope to respond to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). Training impacts on engineering and construction, yet the Government never want to discuss training. The impact on engineering and construction should be discussed widely, even under an apparently limited order.
I could give the hon. Member for Ayr volumes of statistics from the CITB—the Government's labour force—from Europe and from the Employment Gazette contradicting his argument. Britain is not producing enough volume. It certainly is not producing enough quality and, although engineering is doing extremely well in the recession, it is not enough to narrow the skills gap between ourselves and Europe in intermediate qualifications, in the training of young people and in the reskilling of old people. There is no dispute—the statistics show that the Government face a crisis, but they are doing nothing about it.
The fourth issue is that of intermediate qualifications. The key in any sector, whether engineering or construction, is to have more and more people with what in this country we call A-level and equivalent qualifications. In the engineering and construction sectors we must have more people at that intermediate stage because that is the area in which the Japanese, for example, invest. They know that the extra 0.5 per cent. added to value means that the economy and production are enhanced in terms not only of volume but of quality.
I have no hesitation in saying that the main message to the Government is that voluntarism is not working. They should listen carefully to the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board before embarking on a review based on the dogma of the Conservative party rather than on the skill needs of the nation. That is crucial, and I look forward to the Government finding a day of their own time for us to debate the issues so that hon. Members can debate them more fully than we have been able to do this evening.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) accused me of treating the subject lightly, but that is not the case. If anyone is taking it lightly, it is the Labour party, as shown by its massive attendance.


Before we take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he should look behind him at the great level of support he has. We certainly do not take lightly the training of young people in industry. We take it seriously, which is why we are giving more money than has ever been given before; but, of course, discussions will take place in the usual expenditure round.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I have no intention of pre-empting the reviews that are under way, but I can say that the Government are not being dogmatic about the way to proceed. We are looking to independent training organisations in industry where that is the best solution. As I have made clear, where that is not the best way to proceed we are open to representations. We shall be listening very carefully during the reviews. The statutory system has not worked properly so it is right to look for new methods. If they are the best way forward we shall accept them. We shall not be stuck to dogma like the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) was correct. We regularly hear the Labour party whinge.
The order has general support and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 27th February. in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
That Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Mike Hall be added to the Committee. —[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Michael Cook

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Boswell.]

Dr. Robert Spink: Rachel, a 9-year-old girl, was murdered by strangulation in a car on the Algarve in Portugal in November 1990. Michael Cook, a friend of Rachel's family, was convicted of the murder in February this year and sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment. He was tried by three local judges without a jury. The House will hear that the conviction is unsafe.
I must start with every possible word of sympathy for Rachel and her family. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) is here because of his concern for his constituent, the victim's mother.
There can be no greater evil than such a crime. I would not defend in any way a child murderer, but I will defend my constituent's right to a fair trial. My responsibility and my job tonight is to highlight the possibility that my constituent may be the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. Some say that Cook is innocent; some say that the police investigation was inadequate. Some say that the trial verdict was so lacking supporting evidence as to be incredible. Some say that Cook has been tortured and mistreated. Those are not questions which the House can or should decide. In truth, I do not know whether Cook is innocent or guilty. What I do know is that many questions are raised by the case which have the most serious implications, not only for Michael Cook, but for all British subjects travelling abroad.
Let us review some of the evidence. There was, understandably, immense local pressure to clear up this horrible crime. An unsolved child murder would frighten away tourists. An elderly Portuguese gardener said that he saw the murderer and the murder car. He said that the car was red with foreign plates. Cook had such a car. It was alleged that Cook's car tyre marks were found where the body was discovered, and on that prime tyre mark evidence Cook was arrested. It was claimed by the police that Cook had a child-molesting record and that he had confessed to the crime: they had their man. The public furore and the subsequent relief at Cook's arrest were surpassed only by the total outrage against him.
Let us examine the initial key facts. After nine months in gaol, Cook got two good lawyers and it was quickly discovered that the prime—indeed the only—hard evidence linking Cook to the murder was bogus. The tyre marks were of an entirely different type from those of Cook's car. It is also claimed that Cook's car does not have the ground clearance needed for the area where Rachel was found.
Similarly, no confession was ever presented at the trial. It had been claimed by police that two officers heard the confession. One remembered it clearly; the second denied all recollection of it. One would not expect to forget such a thing easily.
Cook appeared in court, with black eyes and a missing tooth, and he was deeply bruised. It is claimed that Cook was hung from an upstairs window by his feet, that his feet were beaten until he could not stand, that he was tied to a chair and beaten, that he was deprived of sleep, and that a revolver was forced into his mouth and the trigger pulled in a mock execution. Cook's lawyers were said to be pushing for the release of a television video report which


allegedly showed police beating Cook. Those lawyers were involved in a tragic accident involving a front tyre blow-out which, incidentally, it is claimed has never been properly investigated by the police. In that untimely accident, Dr. da Silva was killed and Dr. Coelho was severely injured.
What of the final piece of the early evidence—Cook's record as a child molester? It too is quite bogus. At the trial, the police tried to rescue some credibility on the point. An officer said that Cook had been seen abusing a child a few weeks before Rachel's murder. One might wonder why that was not mentioned at the time. Nevertheless, the judge asked the officer how he knew that. The officer replied that someone, unnamed, had told him. The judge accepted that so-called "evidence" as clear and unequivocal. I must inform the House that I know of no evidence that Cook has ever posed any threat to children.
I do know of evidence suggesting that Cook is safe and trustworthy with children. I am not aware of any conspiracy and I make no allegations. However, it must be said that Cook was a good target to be "fitted up". He has a minor criminal record and he was working unregistered on the Algarve in the motor trade. Indeed, he may have hung himself as his initial account to the police of his movements could have been inconsistent because he thought that he was being questioned about a petty crime.
Let me return to the old gardener—there is always an old gardener in such tales. He changed his story at least twice; his memory, it seems, was greatly assisted by the police. The car was indeed red and foreign, he said; but so was Rachel's stepfather's car, and many others in the area. He also saw Cook talking to Rachel. Cook was, he said, wearing sunglasses, although it would have been almost dark at the time.
The gardener had no difficulty, however, in picking out Cook from an identification parade—at least, not after the police had specifically pointed Cook out to him, asking, "Is that the man?" Not that that was necessary; Cook was a white, 5-ft-tall, slightly built Englishman, while the rest of the parade consisted of burly, dark, Portuguese policemen who were obviously of Mediterranean origin.
Hon. Members may be horrified to learn that, much earlier than that parade—indeed, the day after the body was found—Cook was shown to the gardener by the local police, and the gardener said that Cook was not the man whom he had seen on the fateful day in question. He changed his story. Clearly, the police case needed boosting, so the most incredible thing happened: a reconstruction of the crime was forced on Cook.
The police said that, in the reconstruction, Cook had shown them the exact positions in which they had found Rachel's school bag and shoes. They said that those items had been thrown by Cook from a fast-moving car over many kilometres on a country road down which he can seldom have been before, some weeks after the alleged event. Even the police blushed when they told that one in court.
Let me now review the harrowing scene of the crime. Again, I sincerely apologise to the victim's family, but this has to be done. A pathologist stated that Rachel struggled furiously for her life in the front passenger seat of a car; it

took four to eight minutes to kill her by strangulation. Rachel naturally fought hard, and had the blood of her murderer under her fingernails.
No sophisticated DNA or type matching of the samples was ever presented to court. No evidence was ever presented even to show the simple blood group of the murderer. Such basic blood-group evidence could not have proved that Cook was the murderer, but it could most assuredly have proved his innocence. Hon. Members may feel very uncomfortable about the fact that that evidence was lost, and we should ask why it was lost—or, worse, why it was not used.
What, then, of the other forensic evidence? We can all imagine the horrific struggle—that frantic four or eight minutes. Surely the car would exhibit many clues; law experts feel that that must be so. Incredibly, however, not a single link was found between Cook's car and Rachel, or her clothes. The Sunday Times stated:
Not a single hair, fibre, bloodstain or sign of damage was found in Cook's car. And Police did not find it unusual that Cook had not cleaned the entire car in an effort to erase prints … When the body was found, no forensic search was made of the area and no tests were carried out on a bloodstain seen under a fingernail. The body was cremated within days and without extensive forensic examination.
Therefore, the defence was denied the possibility of conducting the necessary independent tests. Is not that beyond belief?
Let me now turn to the pathologist's evidence, starting with the astonishing point that the report was tampered with. It has lost—for ever, it seems—its important front page, which gave, among other information, the time of death. The pathologist, apparently, is now unavailable.
The Sunday Times reported:
Such post mortem work that was done was minimal".
However, a pathologist hired by the defence who examined Rachel's organs said that she might have been killed 24 or 30 hours before her body was discovered, which apparently indicates that she may have been held alive by her murderer for up to two days. She was discovered four days after she disappeared. Cook was first in police hands the day after she disappeared.
That brings us to the alibi evidence and suggests that Cook had the best possible alibi—he was in very close contact with or in the custody of the police, but the judges dismissed that, the pathologist's evidence. Moreover, there was the condition of Rachel and her clothes when found. They were clean and dry. That is consistent with the defence pathologist's findings. The weather had been dry the day Rachel was found, but the previous days had been wet, thus suggesting that Rachel had been dumped only the day she was found.
That evidence was also disallowed by the judges. They chose, as they can under Portuguese law, to refuse to hear some evidence. In a trivial case, that may have been justified, but, in the circumstances, hon. Members may feel that that was an extraordinary piece of selectivity. What is even more remarkable, though, is that the person who found Rachel's body was never called to give evidence, and therefore his evidence was denied to the defence.
Additional alibi evidence comes from Cook's workmates, who saw him a maximum of 10 minutes after he was said to be seen by the man on the horse at the place of the body. The times were precise and checked, but the distance of the two sightings put them a minimum of 12 minutes


apart, with no allowance for any other activity at all. That would have been impossible to achieve. That evidence was also rejected.
According to the pathologist, Rachel was strangled with a nylon rope. A nylon rope, a jumper matching the one Rachel was wearing and a blanket which was covered with pine needles, as was Rachel's body, were all seen in a car, but not Cook's car. They were seen in Rachel's stepfather's red foreign car. The police did not investigate or use that evidence.
The stepfather certainly had a violent nature at times. Rachel's mother was said by a neighbour sometimes to flee to her home for sanctuary with the neigbour and to stay there with her overnight out of fear of her stepfather's violence. Several people say that they saw scratch marks on the side of the stepfather's face and his arm the day after Rachel disappeared. Some have pointed a finger at the stepfather, but the House cannot and must not assume anything—that would be quite wrong. In a further twist, the stepfather died tragically precisely one year to the day after Rachel was killed, the third death in this story. Therefore, his confession cannot be tested. I raise those points not to incriminate in any way Rachel's stepfather but only to illustrate, as is my clear duty, the late evening shadow of doubt which is cast over the conviction of my constituent.
I now refer briefly to the trial and verdict. We have seen that there was no jury and that the three judges were local. They were inexperienced in trying such an unusual case. In Portugal, judges arc able to dictate entirely what evidence they will admit and what they will refuse even to hear. With so much evidence lost, destroyed or refused by the judges, Cook's trial was fatally flawed.
The basis of the judges' verdict was made clear in their summing-up. There was a total lack of hard forensic evidence, but sadly there was no lack of hearsay. For instance, members of the Portuguese Institute of Fingerprints told the court the judges said "with conviction", that Cook's way of life and his friendship with Rachel's family indicated that he was the murderer. Sadly, those fingerprints experts produced no fingerprint evidence.
The judges implied that no motive whatsoever was found, and Cook was not accused of any particular motive. There was no sexual interference of any kind with Rachel. In Portuguese law, first-degree murder requires a motive and premeditation, I understand. They seemed curiously absent. The judges said nothing of substance that I can find in the translation of their summary, except that, as Cook knew the family, he must be the murderer. I turn, briefly, to the appeal. The hearing may not take place until June 1993. That delay, would be intolerable. The appeal cannot question the evidence produced at the trial. That evidence, such as it is, with all its flaws, is considered to be irrefutable. For instance, the police evidence that Cook was a child molester cannot be questioned. Yet we know that it should be.
In the appeal lawyers may question only the admissibility of the evidence under Portuguese law. That raises yet a further grave misgiving because incredibly Cook and his lawyers are not allowed to attend the appeal. Those in the House who believe that justice should be seen to be done may be staggered by that revelation. As my predecessor Sir Bernard Braine wrote:
There is little likelihood that even by the Appeal justice will be done".

Presumably the matter can be argued in the European Court later. Meanwhile, I have three objectives for the debate. First, I wish to bring pressure on the Portuguese authorities about the possible miscarriage of justice and to allow the earliest possible appeal consistent with a fair and safe hearing. Secondly, I wish to prevent any torture or mistreatment of Cook and to signal to all nations that human rights must be upheld. Thirdly, I wish to thank the Foreign Office for its help and advice so far, which has been professional and appropriate—no blame can lie with it—and I ask the Minister to provide a monthly written report from the British consular staff on Cook's physical and mental condition. In addition to those three things, I seek a general review of the help which consular staff give to British citizens arrested abroad.
In summary, there are substantial grounds to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. First, the conduct of the police investigation is in question. Secondly, the conduct of the trial and the basis of the verdict are in question. Thirdly, I place full trust in the Portuguese justice system to ensure that the appeal is fair. Fourthly, there are grounds to question the physical and mental treatment of Cook. Fifthly, the European Court and the European human rights body may eventually need to intervene if the appeal cannot answer the many questions raised. But I trust that that will not be necessary.
I understand that Cook is considering starting a hunger strike. That would hamper my efforts and I most strongly urge him not to do so, particularly in his poor physical condition. We are told that he is prematurely grey. His bodyweight is down to seven stones. He is skeletal. He has three ulcers. His remaining teeth are rotted. He is withdrawn and paranoid. As a child murderer he has suffered many attacks in prison. He bears two knife scars and many burns scars to prove it. He is alone in a foreign gaol, unable to speak the language. He needs our help. But I stress again that we cannot judge the case from our position here.
I sincerely thank the Minister for his advice and support so far, which is also much appreciated by the family. All British citizens must know that, when their back is against the wall and all seems lost and they feel that the world has deserted them, there is a place—this honourable House—where their basic human rights will be upheld and that there are men and women who will fight for their rights, including their right to a fair trial. My fight does not end here tonight. Here, indeed, it begins.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for bringing this important case to its attention. I note the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), who represents his constituent, the mother of Rachel Charles.
I should like to outline the action taken by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of Michael Cook and his family since his arrest. On 5 December 1990 the British consulate in Portimao was informed that Michael Cook had been arrested the previous day for the murder of Rachel Charles. The consulate was told that he had confessed and would be taken before a judge on 6 December to be formally charged. The Portimao consul visited him on 6 December. On that occasion he said that


he was being well treated and had no complaints. A Portuguese police officer was present throughout that meeting.
On 10 December the Portimao consul had a private meeting with Michael Cook. On that occasion Mr. Cook said that he had been beaten twice: once when detained for questioning on 22 November and subsequently after his arrest on 4 December. He said that he had confessed under duress. He claimed to have been beaten on the chest and feet; this, he said, explained why there were no signs of ill treatment.
On the following day, at the consul's insistence, Michael Cook was asked by the prison staff whether he wished to see a doctor so that a formal complaint about his mistreatment could be made. He declined to do so. Also on 11 December the British consul in Lisbon told Mr. Cook's Portuguese lawyer that the embassy would make a formal complaint if Mr. Cook wished. The offer was not taken up either by the lawyer or by Mr. Cook during subsequent visits by the Portimao consul. Thus, no medical examination to substantiate the allegations or otherwise took place.
From 11 December 1990 to 30 January 1992 when his trial began, Michael Cook was visited seven more times by consular officials. He complained once, in February 1991, of having been threatened verbally by other inmates, but said that the threats had ceased. Twice he complained of suffering from mental stress and three times from ulcer problems. The British consul on those occasions sought and received assurances from the prison governor that Mr. Cook would receive the necessary treatment.
The consuls from Lisbon and Portimao attended the first day of Michael Cook's trial, and the Portimao consul attended the last day, 7 February 1992.
On 19 February Michael Cook's brother, Colin Cook, rang the embassy in Lisbon to say that he had heard that Michael Cook had been stabbed in prison in Faro. The embassy immediately made inquiries. It was assured that Michael Cook had not been stabbed, although he had been involved in an argument over cigarettes with another prisoner.
The following day the vice-consul from Lisbon visited Mr. Cook. Although physically all right, he was understandably extremely upset over the trial verdict. The prison governor gave assurances for M r. Cook's safety. On 4 March 1992, Michael Cook was transferred to Coimbra high security prison, about 110 miles north of Lisbon.
During that month, the consul and vice-consul drew the attention of officials at the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the great degree of British ministerial, official and public concern about Michael Cook's case. On 8 March The Sunday Times published an article reporting that Mr. Cook had been ill treated at the hands of other prisoners. The pro-consul in Lisbon looked into those allegations without delay. He contacted the prison governor on 10 March to register the embassy's concern for Michael Cook's safety and welfare. He was assured that there was no evidence of ill-treatment.
Later that day, the vice-consul spoke to Mr. Cook by telephone. Mr. Cook said that one inmate—not a cellmate—had uttered a verbal threat, but that he had not been physically attacked. He mentioned that he was suffering from a stomach ulcer and had dental problems. In

response to this, the vice-consul said that the embassy would write to the prison governor about these problems. A letter was sent on 13 March.
On 6 April Coimbra prison confirmed to the embassy that Michael Cook had been given a full-time job in the prison car paint workshop. It also confirmed that he had seen a doctor about his ulcer and had been put on a special diet. He had also seen a dentist.
On 16 April, the consul visited Michael Cook for two hours in a private room. Mr. Cook confirmed that he had gained some weight as a result of his special diet, and did not wish to have any matter raised with the prison authorities.
Michael Cook recently told his parents that he had been taken to see a psychiatrist. He was under the impression that the prison was trying to have him committed to a mental home, which would make it even more difficult for him to prove his innocence. Coimbra prison has told the consul that Michael Cook did not in fact see a psychiatrist. He was taken to see a specialist about his stomach ulcer. Unfortunately, it appears that the prison mistakenly translated "specialist" for "psychiatrist" when talking to Mr. Cook. The consul will visit Mr. Cook again on 19 June.
I have described the full support given by the consuls in Portimao and Lisbon. Prisoners Abroad, an admirable organisation run by our former colleague in the House, Keith Best, has been in regular contact with Michael Cook and is giving him full support.
I know that Michael Cook, his family and others believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice. I can well understand their concern, but, whatever we may think, it would be wrong for me to express an opinion on the conduct of the trial while an appeal is pending. If the lawyers believe that the case has not been dealt with in accordance with Portuguese law, it is their responsibility to take appropriate steps. Portuguese law provides for this and, indeed, the lawyers have submitted an appeal on Michael Cook's behalf. They have told the British embassy that the Portuguese supreme court has accepted the appeal and that, in their view, the appeal process is proceeding satisfactorily.
On 19 February Colin Cook complained to the British consul in Lisbon that the trial violated article 6 of the European convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. On examination, he agreed that the European convention can be brought into play only when all local remedies have been exhausted. We are keeping in close touch with Mr. Cook's lawyers and the Portuguese authorities. We are asking them to do what they can to ensure that Michael Cook's appeal is heard by the supreme court with the minimum delay. Our ambassador in Lisbon wrote to the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 3 June to press this point, and I will be in touch with my hon. Friend as soon as I have a reply.
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this case, but I hope that he will understand from what I have said that we cannot intervene until the Portuguese legal process has taken its course. Until then we shall, through our consular officials, continue to visit Mr. Cook regularly and to offer him and his family all the support that we properly can. I shall continue to keep my hon. Friend fully informed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock.